Preamble

The House met at half past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

SOUTH YORKSHIRE LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT BILL [Lords]

Read a Second time, and committed.

VALE OF GLAMORGAN (BARRY HARBOUR) BILL [Lords]

HAYLE HARBOUR BILL [Lords]

Orders for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND INDUSTRY

Staff Dispersal

Mr. Sayeed: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is his Department's policy on dispersing staff to the regions; and what proportion of his staff now work outside London.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Anthony Newton): The Government's policy is that Civil Service work should be located where it can be done most cost-effectively and provide the best service to the public, taking account also of the Government's urban and regional policies.
The Department has some 12.670 staff in post, of whom just over half work outside central London. A further 650 Patents Office posts will move to Newport by 1991, and the location of a number of other units is under review.

Mr. Sayeed: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Is the willingness to move outside the south-west evenly distributed across the Civil Service grades or have middle-aged middle management demonstrated greater reluctance to move? If so, what are the implications of that?

Mr. Newton: The implications of any differences, whether described by grades or individuals, are that they must be taken into account when considering both whether a move should take place and the arrangements under which it should do so.

Mr. Ingram: Has the Minister given any consideration to relocating any of the staff in his Department to Norfolk house in my constituency, which has a long-term lease held by the Property Services Agency at a cost of £166,000 per annum, has lain vacant for a considerable number of years and could accommodate approximately 400 staff?

Mr. Newton: As I indicated, there are a number of reviews of possible further relocations taking place. Clearly, we shall bear in mind the availability of office accommodation and the supply of labour in particular locations. I note the hon. Gentleman's point.

Mr. Harris: Of the 6,000 or so members of my right hon. Friend the Minister's staff based in central London, how many were able to turn up for work today? Does he agree that the experiences of millions of people in this capital today underline the absolute necessity of dispersing more Whitehall staff to the regions? In that context, will he look at the claims of Cornwall, particularly in this age of modern information technology?

Mr. Newton: I cannot give my hon. Friend the exact breakdown that he seeks, but a number of my staff are absent. I also take note, as I hope will the Opposition Front Bench spokesmen, of what my hon. Friend said about the disruption needlessly caused to so many thousands of people by today's events. As always, I shall be mindful of Cornwall's needs.

Tameside

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what steps his Department is taking to encourage new industries to come to Tameside.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Robert Atkins): I am tempted to reply, "lots". The north-west is booming economically as a direct result of Her Majesty's Government's policies, and Tameside is no exception. The demand from domestic and foreign companies to invest in the north-west is a true measure of the faith that they have in the British economy.

Mr. Bennett: I am sure that the Minister's words will not encourage the large numbers of my constituents who have been out of work for 12 months or more. They particularly resent the way in which the Government invest so many resources in the south-east and, so far as they can see, very few in Tameside. Will the Minister particuarly impress on his Government colleagues the need to complete the motorway around the east side of Manchester and to develop a freight terminal in the Tameside, east side, of Manchester to take full advantage of the Channel tunnel when it is operational, and so as to be prepared for harmonisation in 1992?

Mr. Atkins: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that my constituency is further north than his. My hon. Friends who represent northern and north-west constituencies and I find a totally different picture from that painted by the hon. Gentleman. The north-west is doing extremely well at the moment, and long may it continue to do so. As the hon. Gentleman will understand, the points that he raised about infrastructure are matters for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. I will draw their attention to the points that he makes.

Mr. Jack: Is not the validity of my hon. Friend's answer borne out when one considers the investment made by companies such as British Aerospace, Fox's Biscuits, Leyland Daf and many others in the Preston area and the capital expansion and employment programmes that they are following?

Mr. Atkins: As usual, my hon. Friend is spot on. He will know, as I do, that the local paper in Preston pointed to how the local Labour council had problems because business was booming to such an extent that there was congestion and more space was needed for offices, but that all in all they were problems of success—something that the council recognised even if Labour Members of Parliament do not.

Trade Deficit

Mr. Alan W. Williams: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster with which European Economic Community members Britain's trade is in deficit.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs (Mr. Francis Maude): In the 12 months to April the United Kingdom was in deficit on visible trade with Belgium and Luxembourg, Denmark, the Federal Republic of Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands and Portugal.

Mr. Williams: The length of that list is impressive. The Minister scarcely missed out any EC country. How can the Government claim that we have the strongest economy in Europe when we have a trade deficit with virtually every other Community country?

Mr. Maude: The question of with which countries we have a deficit is wholly irrelevant. The fact is that three-quarters of the imports into this country are either semi-manufactured capital goods or intermediate goods. They reflect not just increased consumer demand, which is itself an example of the prosperity which pervades this country, but are a consequence of the high investment boom that has been going on. The hon. Gentleman should welcome those signs of strength.

Mr. Hill: Is it not nonsense to continue producing figures of deficits with Community countries when we are supposed to become one major trading bloc after 1992? What use are such figures to anybody in the Community, and should we not dispose of them in 1992?

Mr. Maude: I find no difficulty in the continued existence of the figures, but many people like figures for their own sake. When we place on businesses the requirement to fill in extremely detailed forms, we have to consider the use for which such information is gathered. As my hon. Friend will know, discussions are going on within Europe about the extent of detail that should be collected after 1992. We take the view that, while it may be right that there should be broad measures of trade between Community members, an excessive amount of detail is unnecessary.

Mrs. Mahon: Does the Minister realise that the large part of that deficit which is in textiles—23 per cent.—is worrying people who work in the industry, and that the Government are making things far worse by their policy of high interest rates? People in my constituency are not happy when the Minister trivialises a serious situation.

Mr. Maude: I have not trivialised it, but a percentage point on interest rates places only a third of the cost on industry of an extra percentage point on earnings. Those industries which are seeking and working extremely hard to increase their exports are not helped by the prospect of a dock strike, nor by the transport strikes today.

Sir Anthony Meyer: Will my hon. Friend confirm that there is no real danger of this country being forced to live on Brussels sprouts and that the advent of the single market in 1992 presents British industry and services with tremendous opportunities?

Mr. Maude: My hon. Friend is entirely right. That is why we have mounted a campaign to alert British businesses to the opportunities. However, we have also not sought to hide from British businesses the dangers that may be involved, and the dangers which flow from enhanced competition. The message has been that, for a business to succeed, it must be more competitive, which means containing its costs as best it can and developing its market, services and products to provide what the customer wants.

Mr. Henderson: How does the Minister explain what he would no doubt regard as the wholly irrelevant increase in our trade deficit with EC countries from £5·4 billion in 1979 to £18 billion in 1989, and what new steps does he intend to take to continue his economic miracle in Britain's trade with European countries?

Mr. Maude: The hon. Gentleman missed out of his potted economic history all the years between those two dates when Britain was in substantial surplus. I do not recall him or his colleagues popping up at every Question Time in those years saying what an economic success that was.

Mr. Marlow: There is some debate about joining the European monetary system, I believe. If we were in it, as I understand it, either sterling would be higher or interest rates would be lower, which would mean that either more money would be spent or foreign goods would be cheaper. What would that do to the trade deficit?

Mr. Maude: My hon. Friend raises a most interesting question which, as he will realise, falls outside my responsibilities. At this stage of the year it may be unwise for me to venture into that area.

Departmental Records

Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster where Sir Brian Hayes's personal records of the departmental events of January 1986 will be stored on his retirement.

Mr. Newton: I understand that Sir Brian Hayes made no personal record of these events.

Mr. Dalyell: Are the permanent secretary and the Chancellor still interested in integrity in British public life in the highest echelons of the DTI? As Colette Bowe and John Mogg have both put their accounts of events in bank vaults, would it not be wise and in the interests of posterity for Sir Brian Hayes to make a record and explain why he advised Leon Brittan not to leave the DTI? Did he know that Mr. Powell and Mr. Ingham had approved, quite improperly, the disclosure of the Law Officer's letter? Will Sir Brian reveal his personal view of the Prime Minister's behaviour during the course of those events?

Mr. Newton: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not take the fact that I shall not comment on every part of his question as in any way endorsing the assumptions on which it was based. I can only say, as I have said before,


that I have nothing to add to the very full account given to the House by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister some three years ago.

Mr. Barry Field: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is a long tradition of this House that right hon. and hon. Members do not criticise civil servants, who serve all shades of Government so loyally? In view of the monocular mentality of the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), does my right hon. Friend agree that it would he no bad thing if the hon. Gentleman were placed in storage long before retirement?

Mr. Newton: I note what my hon. Friend suggests, and no doubt the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) has also done so.

ERDF Grant

Mr. Morley: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what are the current figures for ERDF grant in Yorkshire and Humberside in 1988–89.

Mr. Atkins: In the financial year 1988–89, ERDF commitments to Yorkshire and Humberside were valued at £26 million.

Mr. Morley: Will the Minister join me in congratulating Scunthorpe borough council on creating so many jobs in the borough—more, in fact, than its neighbouring Conservative-controlled authority, even though it has exactly the same access to exactly the same grants? Is the Minister aware of the difficulty facing Yorkshire and Humberside, including Scunthorpe, because of the way in which the integration development operations programme has overrun its plans? Has Commissioner Milian said what help he will give through transitional assistance for current schemes in both Scunthorpe and Bradford borough councils?

Mr. Atkins: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that he and two of his colleagues came to discuss this matter. We managed to resolve the misunderstanding that occurred—to his satisfaction, I hope, and to that of his hon. Friends the Members for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) and for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn). To date, I have no information to give him on what Commissioner Milian is doing, although we are ensuring that the commitment that I honoured in my letter to his hon. Friend will be maintained. I do not wish to be drawn on the comparison between one borough council and another, except to say that I am delighted if any borough is able to create more jobs. After all, whether boroughs are controlled by the Labour party or any other party, it is the Conservative Government's overall economic policy which has provided the environment in which those jobs have been created.

Mr. Riddick: Although as a Yorkshire Member I welcome the money coming into Yorkshire from the European Community, may I point out that we need to keep the whole matter in perspective? Are not Yorkshire companies, and British companies generally, making substantial contributions through the tax system to the European Community and helping to fund the £2 billion net contribution that Britain makes each year to the European Community? As we get only £26 million back

through regional funds, does not that pale into insignificance compared with the net contribution that we have to make?

Mr. Atkins: My hon. Friend makes his own point in his own way. As a Lancashire Member, I would not wish to be drawn on the subject of the money being given to Yorkshire. In the context of friendly rivalry, I merely hope that Lancashire is doing as well if not better than Yorkshire and Humberside.

Competitiveness

Mr. Bell: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what has been the change in competitiveness of British industry in the last 10 years.

Mr. Newton: Competitiveness involves numerous factors, including quality, reliability, assurance of delivery and after-sales service. In relation to price competitiveness alone, unit labour costs in United Kingdom manufacturing compared with those in other industrial countries, allowing for the effects of exchange rate movements, are thought to have been on average the same in 1988 as in 1979.

Mr. Bell: To translate that into real terms, 51,000 jobs were lost on Teesside alone between 1979 and 1981 and although we welcome British Steel's £600 million profit, we should not forget that it was achieved at the cost of the loss of 130,000 jobs, many of them on Teesside. Will the Minister confirm that we have lost about 9 per cent of world trade since 1979, a loss which has been greater than that of our industrial competitors? Does the Minister think that that reflects a supply side economic failure or success?

Mr. Newton: On the specific point raised, the indications are that in recent years the decline in Britain's share of trade has stopped, and may even have been reversed after many years—indeed, decades—in which there was a persistent tendency to decline. With regard to the north-east, there is no doubt that there have been substantial changes in the pattern of employment over the period in question, but they reflect an increase in the competitiveness of the relevant industries, including steel, which means that there are now secure jobs whereas previously there were insecure jobs.

Mr. Favell: Is it not a fact that Britain has nothing to fear while the spirit that is obvious today abounds in the many people who have come into London and other industrial cities in the face of the most extraordinary difficulties? An example is the young lady I saw in a baker's in Strutton Ground today, near my London accommodation, who had come into work at 5 am. Despite having had a six-hour journey to reach home last Friday, she is back again today.

Mr. Newton: I have not had the opportunity to make that young lady's acquaintance, but I am happy to pay tribute to her efforts and to those of many others who have overcome needless industrial disruption to get to work today.

Dr. Reid: On the subject of security in the steel industry, the steel workers of Bellshill will be grateful to the Minister for his assurance that their jobs in the Clydesdale Tube Works are guaranteed. Does the Minister agree that competitiveness is often a function of investment at plant


level and that no matter what efforts are made by the work force, in the absence of that investment and technological capital equipment the work force often comes off worst? Is the Minister aware that in the Clydesdale Tube Works at Bellshill over the past two years the workers have increased quality, delivery times and productivity beyond all recognition, but we understand that there is still a threat over their heads due to lack of investment in the mills? How does the Minister intend to ensure that his assurance today that steel jobs are secure will be maintained now that he has privatised the steel industry so that it is outwith our control?

Mr. Newton: Eight or nine years ago the steel industry gained a mention in the "Guinness Book of Records" for the largest corporate loss ever made. It has now been privatised, is making substantial profits and has far greater capacity to invest than would have been the case if the previous policy had been allowed to continue.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Would my right hon. Friend care to speculate about the effect on the competitiveness of British industry if we had a policy of increasing company and personal taxation, imposing import controls, increasing regulation and bureaucracy, and subsidising inefficient industries—all policies that have been espoused by Opposition Members during the past few years?

Mr. Newton: The result would have been the same dismal performance that we saw between 1974 and 1979, when Britain's international competitiveness declined by about 25 per cent.

Enterprise Initiative

Mr. Cash: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many applications have so far been received for consultancy projects under the enterprise initiative.

Mr. Newton: More than 28,000 applications for assisted consultancy projects have been received since the launch of the scheme in January 1988. Building on this success, my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State yesterday announced improvements to make it easier for smaller firms to obtain the advice they need to improve their performance, and to extend the role of enterprise counsellors to cover single market issues.

Mr. Cash: Does my right hon. Friend agree that although it is encouraging to see the emphasis being placed on marketing in these consultancy projects, quality seems to be falling back to second in line although it is impossible to sell and market things if they are not of sufficient quality? With regard to the trade deficit and competitiveness, would it not be helpful to put extra emphasis on the importance of quality so as to ensure that we deal with the real reason for the trade deficit, which is that some countries are producing higher quality goods than we are?

Mr. Newton: Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. One of the improvements that my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State announced yesterday was greater emphasis on total quality management in one of the consultancy initiatives.

Mr. Grocott: Will the Minister tell us how much the television advertising campaign for the enterprise initiative

has cost? Will he do the arithmetic and tell us how much each successful application has cost as a proportion of total television advertising costs?

Mr. Newton: There would be no point in an initiative of this sort if it were not brought extensively to the attention of those at whom it is aimed. The response has been substantial. Our surveys have shown that many of the firms which have acknowledged the benefits that they have gained from the consultancy initiative would not otherwise have sought that advice and help, which is improving the competitiveness and quality of British industry.

Mr. John Townend: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in my area several small firms have taken advantage of the scheme and have benefited from the Government-aided consultancy? Does he agree that every effort should be made to increase the take-up among small firms because many are sceptical and some are frightened of consultants? Does he further agree that one way of doing that would be to have a register of small firms which have used the scheme satisfactorily and which would be available to act as referees for other small firms sceptical about the scheme?

Mr. Newton: I note and will consider my hon. Friend's suggestion. We are aiming the scheme at small firms. It is satisfactory that of the 28,000 applications to which I have referred, about 90 per cent. have been from firms employing fewer than 100 people. One of the new measures announced in the past two or three days is designed to make the scheme even more user-friendly to small firms.

Mr. Hoyle: Will the right hon. Gentleman please answer a direct question and tell us the cost of that television advertising and the cost per application take-up?

Mr. Newton: I have already made that clear to the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friend, the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott). The point about such a scheme is that because of the advantages that it entails we should bring it to the attention of those at whom it is aimed, and that has been achieved.

Trade Barriers

Mr. Oppenheim: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what action the Government are taking to ensure that the European Economic Community does not erect protectionist trade barriers.

Mr. Maude: The United Kingdom is committed to ensuring that our experience of the economic benefits of free markets and deregulation is reflected in Community policy. The Community is also working in the Uruguay round of GATT negotiations to achieve a further substantial liberalisation of international trade.

Mr. Oppenheim: Can my hon. Friend confirm that the Government's opposition to protectionist trade runs to opposing vigorously any moves to protectionism emanating from within the Commission, despite recent improvements within the Commission? Can he also confirm that the best way to tackle competition from places like Japan and Korea is to look to our own problems, particularly in education and our attitude to industry, rather than imposing quotas, voluntary restraint


agreements and spurious anti-dumping duties, which only push up prices to consumers and compound the inefficiencies of European industry?

Mr. Maude: I very much agree with my hon. Friend's sentiments. I am grateful to him for acknowledging that the attitude of the European Commission on these matters is increasingly liberal. Certainly, the new Commission takes the view that free trade is very good and that we should work hard to pursue it. My hon. Friend is also right to say that it is important to open trade in other markets outside the Community. I believe that those markets are opening. It is now up to British businesses to seek to exploit those markets and to get into them and sell hard.

Mr. Cryer: Does the Minister agree that after 1992 it will be essential for the survival of the clothing and textile industry that there is a burden-sharing agreement between all 12 member states on the import of textiles and clothing into the Common Market? Does the Minister further agree that the easiest market to penetrate is the United Kingdom market, with six main suppliers supplying every major town and city throughout the United Kingdom? That is not the position in any other member state. Therefore, on the basis of equality, a burden-sharing arrangement should be made. It is vital for the continued success of the British textile industry in areas like mine in Bradford.

Mr. Maude: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the multi-fibre arrangement was never intended to be more than a temporary measure to protect industry during a period of disruption and major changes worldwide in the industry. He will know that it is the intention of the Community in the GATT negotiations to consider ways of returning to ordinary trading. He knows also that my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade is well seized of the point that he raised about burden sharing within the Community and is working hard at it. Of course, the hon. Gentleman will want to recognise that the effect of protectionism in textiles—for that is what it is—is to increase the cost of clothing, which affects worst the poorest in society, and to inhibit the industrialisation of developing countries.

Mr. Aitken: If we are so opposed to protectionist trade barriers in Europe, can my hon. Friend kindly explain our humiliating acrobatics over the recent EC broadcasting directive? How did it come about that we supported the directive requiring all media companies in this country to take more than 50 per cent. of their programming from EC sources? Having supported that protectionist measure at 2 o'clock in the morning in the House, how did it come about, since we were arguing that it is more communitaire to support the EC party line, that when we got to Brussels the following day, we were out-voted by our communitaire partners and ended up with egg all over our faces?

Mr. Maude: I have to tell my hon. Friend that he has got it wrong. We were actually extremely successful in achieving a common position on the broadcasting directive which was very much more liberal than that which was proposed by many of our partners in the Community.

Mr. Aitken: Nonsense.

Mr. Maude: If my hon. Friend will contain his impatience for a little while, I will tell him that we have by no means lost the agreement. It is of great regret to us, having discussed it in good faith, that two countries in the

Community, which pretend perhaps a greater adherence to European idealism than we do, went back on the agreement that they had already reached. But that does not mean that the broadcasting directive will be renegotiated. There is still a numerical majority for the common position that was reached, and I have no doubt that the qualified majority will be reasserted.

New Businesses

Mr. Amos: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many new businesses have been established in Northumberland in the past three years; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Atkins: I am tempted to reply yet again, "lots".
In the three years 1985 to 1987, the estimated number of new registrations for value added tax in Northumberland was 1,946. The net increase in the VAT-registered businesses in the period was 211—in fact, a 3 per cent. rise.

Mr. Amos: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that excellent news. Does he agree that that is further proof of the Government's economic success in laying permanent foundations for the revival of the north-east, especially for small businesses and for self-employment? That success is now being broadcast far and wide throughout the region by all the media—Tyne-Tees Television, the Evening Chronicle, The Journal and the BBC. We are grateful to the Government for their policies.

Mr. Atkins: My hon. Friend is well known for his championing of the case which is represented in his constituency. He has summed up succinctly the success story that is Northumberland.

Mr. Beith: What practical support is the Minister prepared to give to ensure that European aid goes to businesses in areas of Northumberland to ensure that they benefit after 1992 from more direct communications and other investment projects that will help them to prosper?

Mr. Atkins: I paid a visit to the hon. Gentleman's constituency, and I saw just how much is required to be done as well as what is being done to benefit his part of the world. He will continue to put his case and we will seek to reflect his concern within European circles. I know that the hon. Gentleman will agree that the successes of Government policy are being shown even in his part of the world.

Information Technology

Mr. Ron Brown: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many of the 52 recommendations of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry report on information technology have been accepted by his Department.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs (Mr. Eric Forth): The Government have broadly accepted 28 of the 52 recommendations of the Trade and Industry Committee's report on IT.

Mr. Brown: Is not the Government's record a disgrace, bearing in mind that we still have a very high level of


unemployment in this country, which is especially true of Leith where more than 20 per cent. of my constituents cannot get a real job? Can the Minister explain that?

Mr. Forth: I confess that the direct connection between employment in the hon. Gentleman's constituency and the Trade and Industry Committee's report on IT escapes me for the moment.

Mr. Allason: Is my hon. Friend aware of the growing anxiety about computer hacking in relation to information technology? Is he also aware that, in spite of pressure from various sources about the need for legislation on this subject, it is the view of the police that they are capable of dealing with computer fraud under existing legislation?

Mr. Forth: Yes. I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He is obviously aware that there has been a lot of discussion on the subject and much concern has been expressed. The Government, however, are taking a measured view of the problem. They are examining the evidence and they are assessing how far the existing provisions are adequate to meet the problem or how far new measures may be required. I am confident that a decision will be reached shortly, so that we can give the necessary assurances on this important matter. No one will be rushed into a decision. We want to get it right rather than arrive too soon at what may be the wrong decision.

Mr. Stott: When looking into the question of information technology, the Select Committee on Trade and Industry considered the deficit in electronic goods. I am sure that the Minister is aware that last year the trade deficit in electronics was £3·9 billion, which is an increase of 15 per cent. on the previous year, and accounts for almost one third of the total trade deficit. In the past four years alone, the deficit in electronic goods—which includes computers, telecommunications and audio equipment—has risen by a staggering 40 per cent. The Minister will be further aware that that pathetic record was remarked upon extensively by the Select Committee. The Government are now involved in negotiating a detailed sector plan with the brewing industry. Is it not time that they got around the table with the IT industry to work out how Britain can begin to remedy that £4 billion trade gap in one of our most important industries?

Mr. Forth: The hon. Gentleman exhibits the delight that the Opposition have in producing what they believe is bad news on every possible occasion. But what the hon. Gentleman has not told the House is that—it is important to understand this—every major OECD country, with the exception only of Japan, has an IT trade deficit. He has also not told the House that—this is another important figure—the United Kingdom has a trade surplus with the rest of the EC in IT products; something that the Opposition were trying to portray as an adverse picture not a few moments ago. Rather than fall into the trap that the hon. Gentleman is trying to set for the House in asking whether we shall take action to remedy one particular item that he regards as being bad news, we should acknowledge the excellent work that has been done in the IT industry, acknowledge a success story when we see one and not be driven off course by the sort of selective bad news offered up by the Opposition on these occasions.

Export Growth

Mr. Beith: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he will make a statement on the rate of growth of British exports.

Mr. Maude: Since 1979, visible exports have increased in volume—that is in real terms—by 30 per cent., and invisible exports by about 40 per cent. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will want to join us in congratulating all those businesses that have worked hard to achieve that major success story.

Mr. Beith: Is the Minister aware that the Budget prediction that trade will be in balance by 1992 depends upon an annual export growth of 7 per cent. and an import growth 4 per cent. lower than that? By how far are we currently failing to achieve that and has the prediction of the balance of trade by 1992 been revised?

Mr. Maude: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be reassured to be told that during the three months ending in April 1989, non-oil exports have risen by 7·5 per cent. compared with the equivalent three months a year ago, and that represents the sort of growth in exports about which the hon. Gentleman will be relieved and delighted to hear.

Mr. Soames: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government's work in establishing and promoting the 1992 programme in Europe has been of great benefit to our exporting companies, but is he also aware of the considerable confusion that is caused to British industry by the rather garbled and confused message that appears to have emanated from the Government on European policy since then? Will my hon. Friend clarify to the House what steps the Government intend to take to stabilise the exchange control mechanism and when they will all be singing one song?

Mr. Maude: I am sure that if my hon. Friend has been listening carefully he will have heard not only one song but a very good song. We are fully engaged in the EC, we have led in many respects and we have achieved a great many successes. In continuing to improve our exports, nothing can substitute for the ability of firms to produce the goods and services that their customers want, but we have done a great deal in providing the sort of help that is needed to do that.

Mr. Morgan: Further to the question asked by the hon. Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames), which did not fully comply with the EEC brown nose directive, unlike the question from the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Amos), in what year does the Minister expect our trade to be in balance and to be able to make good the accumulated trade deficit of the past three or four years?

Mr. Maude: I see no reason to divert from the most recent forecast of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr. Page: While welcoming the increase in the volume of our exports, may I ask what effect a reduction in soft loans will have on their rate of growth, and do any of our foreign competitors intend either to increase or to decrease their support in that respect?

Mr. Maude: Clearly, changes in the amount and extent of soft loans available do have an effect. However, that


matter is not one with which I deal directly, but no doubt my hon. Friend will receive at some stage a satisfactory reply from my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade. I make no apology for repeating that nothing can substitute for the ability of firms to compete in the market place.

Mr. John Garrett: What does the Minister have to say about the Confederation of British Industry survey published this week, which shows that our export prospects are the worst for two and half years? Is not that directly attributable to the Minister's right hon. Friend the one-club Chancellor, whose policies are crippling British exports?

Mr. Maude: The hon. Gentleman is wholly wrong. As I said in an earlier answer to one of his hon. Friends, the effect of interest rates on business is considerably less than the effect of unjustified increases in earnings. As to the competitiveness of exchange rates, the hon. Gentleman will recollect that Japan increased exports considerably even when the value of the yen doubled. I say again that it is the ability of businesses to win markets that matters, not what the Government do.

Monopolies and Mergers Commission (Report)

Mr. Adley: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many reports produced by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission in the last five years have been prompted by him; and how many have been initiated by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission itself.

Mr. Maude: The Monopolies and Mergers Commission has no power to initiate investigations. It can investigate and report only on matters referred to it by Ministers, the Director General of Fair Trading, Director General of Telecommunications, Director General of Gas Supply, or the Civil Aviation Authority. In the last five years some 78 reports by the commission have been published. Of those my right hon. and noble Friend and his predecessors were responsible for initiating 54.

Mr. Adley: Does my hon. Friend agree that there should be manifest evidence of widespread discontent before the Monopolies and Mergers Commission decides to investigate matters that are at the heart of our national life? Can my hon. Friend say whether his postbag or his constituency surgeries are bulging with letters or with discontented pub-goers, because mine are not? Is the commission short of work, or is Government policy perhaps dictated by liberal interventionism, as evidenced by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs?

Mr. Maude: As I told my hon. Friend in my original reply, the MMC does not initiate investigations. The inquiry to which my hon. Friend makes oblique reference was referred to it by the Director General of Fair Trading in the belief that certain matters required investigation. The report that the commission produced bears that out. As to the contents of my postbag, I can tell my hon. Friend that I received at least as many representations in favour of implementing the MMC's report as I did against. We are weighing those representations very carefully to arrive at the right answer. When a report containing trenchant findings, as that report did, is produced it is clearly not an option for the Government to do nothing.

Mr. Holt: Will my hon. Friend say out of the long list of people that he gave, which of them is the lunatic who referred the merger between William Hill and Mecca to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission? Whatever the outcome may be, the fact remains that William Hill, for which I had the pleasure of working for six years, no longer exists in its previous form. Its directors have either retired or resigned, and anything that the MMC does is now a complete waste of time and money.

Mr. Maude: No doubt my hon. Friend will make his observations, in whatever form he feels is appropriate, to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, which is carrying out that investigation. The reference was made on the very firm advice of the Director General of Fair Trading.

Information Technology White Paper

Mr. Dunnachie: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what responses his Department has received to the White Paper on information technology (Cm. 646).

Mr. Forth: I have received written comments on the White Paper from one firm, a United Kingdom computer manufacturer.

Mr. Dunnachie: The Government are now involved in negotiating a detailed sector plan with the breweries. Is it not time for the Government to get around a table with the information technology industry to try to find a way for Britain to reduce the £4 billion trade deficit in this vital industry? Why has the House not debated the White Paper on information technology, and when can we expect to see a trade surplus in IT?

Mr. Forth: I do not recall the hon. Gentleman being present for the debate that we had on information technology a couple of months ago. Perhaps he did not notice that there was to be a debate, or perhaps his interest was not as great then as it seems to be now.
The Opposition's record has stuck in a groove. The same phrases and the same prompts have been used twice in fairly quick succession, and, if I may, I shall give the same answer. Of all the major OECD countries, only Japan has a surplus in IT products. The proud record of the United Kingdom is a trade surplus in IT with the rest of the European Community. We shall not contemplate the old-fashioned and time-worn answer of sector plans: we threw that out years ago, and as a result our economy has boomed and become successful.

Interest Rates

Mr. McAllion: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is his estimate of the cost to industry of recent rises in interest rates.

Mr. Newton: Bank base rates have risen by one percentage point in 1989. The estimated cost to industrial and commercial companies of such an increase is about £0.4 billion in a full year.

Mr. McAllion: What is the point of the DTI running a £12 million publicity campaign to raise industry's awareness of 1992 when at the same time the Treasury's high interest rates policy is undermining any investment boom that the Minister thinks that he sees, and crippling


the long-term capacity of British industry to compete? In recent months, as we have seen, the Chancellor has been prepared to sing a different song and to stand up even to the Prime Minister. When will the Minister stand up for British industry and take on the Chancellor in the interest rates battle?

Mr. Newton: The latest survey of manufacturing industry's investment intentions suggests a further rise of some 15 per cent. in the present year, following a rise of about 15 per cent. last year. That reflects the continuing financial strength of British companies. I have here, and would read out if I had time, a string of investment projects in the hon. Gentleman's own city which, as he must know well, have been announced in recent months or are already going ahead.

Mr. Gow: If interest rates were reduced as the Opposition recommend, would not domestic inflation increase and the value of sterling diminish, and would not that in itself add to inflation?

Mr. Newton: I see no reason to quarrel with my hon. Friend's analysis. He has made the point well that the real threat to the future of British industry would be a resurgence of inflation, taking it back to the levels run consistently by the last Labour Government.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: What factors does the Minister believe will lead to a reduction in inflation, and what is going on now that will result in such a reduction?

Mr. Newton: The damping down of the pressure of domestic demand, which is the objective of the Government's policies, has, I think, been acknowledged —for instance, in a number of recent surveys and speeches by the CBI—to be having an effect, not least in the much slower rise in factory-gate prices, which will feed through to the retail prices index in due course.

Mr. Hind: My right hon. Friend will no doubt agree that, given the 15 per cent. increase in investment in this country, it ill behoves the Opposition to give us lectures on advances and investment in industry when their own leader, when asked by Mr. Naughtie on BBC radio whether they had any answer to the problem of inflation, replied that he had no such answer. We recognise that interest rates present the only way of curbing inflation.

Mr. Newton: Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend.

Mr. Gould: In view of the continuing damage done to British industry by the Chancellor's attempt to buck the markets through high interest rates, what representations has the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry made to him on the subject?

Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman refers to "the continuing damage to British industry". I invite him to explain why we now have a dramatically greater investment boom, a dramatically greater improvement in productivity and a dramatically greater improvement in output than when the Administration that he supported left office. That is the strengthening of the British economy that has taken place.

Single Market

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what monitoring he has

undertaken of the level of awareness among business men of the single market achieved by his Department's "Europe—Open for Business" campaign.

Mr. Maude: The Department of Trade and Industry carries out a detailed survey of 100 different firms every week. The results show that 90 per cent. of business throughout the country is aware of the single market.

Mr. Hughes: Has my hon. Friend had time to look at the CBI survey which shows that three quarters of British companies have taken action on 1992? Surveys in France and Spain show that half the companies have taken action, a survey in Italy shows that a third of companies have taken action and another survey in West Germany shows that one seventh of companies have taken action. Does my hon. Friend take some comfort from the fact that the action that his Department is taking is having some success?

Mr. Maude: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the CBI survey. He is also right to say that it bodes very well indeed for the future, but that is not to say that British firms can become complacent and relax. The opening of the single market by the end of 1992 will, as I have said before, create much sharper competition. Every firm will have to intensify its activities and increase its cutting edge. However, my hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the extent to which British firms are doing better, and doing it faster, than other firms in the Community.

Mr. Gould: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that neither the British people nor British industry are fooled by glossy television advertising? [Interruption.] It may have escaped the attention—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Interruptions take up a lot of time.

Mr. Gould: It may have escaped the attention of Government Members that we are not permitted to advertise during election campaigns in this country. Does the Minister accept, however, that glossy television advertising does not fool either the British people or British industry? They understand very well that the legacy of 10 Tory years has left British industry woefully ill prepared for the single European market. That is one of the major reasons for the Government's disastrous showing in last week's Euro-elections.

Mr. Maude: I can think of no better demonstration of the hon. Gentleman's first proposition than the result of the 1987 general election. As for the hon. Gentleman's second proposition, the fact is that British business is now in better shape. It is fitter; productivity is better; output is higher. In every way British business is better fitted than it has been for a generation to take advantage of the opportunities. The one thing that British business does not need is advice from the hon. Gentleman on how to conduct itself.

Estate Agents

Mr. Martlew: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what progress is being made in the regulation of estate agents.

Mr. Forth: After an extensive review of estate agency issues, I have concluded that the best way to achieve a significant improvement in the practices of estate agency is


through a combination of self-regulation and statutory provision. I have asked the Director General of Fair Trading to discuss with the industry the introduction of a code of practice for estate agency. He has agreed to report early next year.
We will need to support this code by acting against a number of undesirable practices, including tie-in sales where the agent refuses to pass on bids unless the purchaser agrees to arrange finance or insurance through him. I intend to do this by introducing an order under section 3 of the Act which would define certain practices as "undesirable." I have also asked the director general to review the arguments for extending the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 to misdescriptions of property.
Copies of my report have been placed in the Library and the Vote Office.

Mr. Martlew: Does the Minister agree that the people of this country have been ripped off too often by estate agents and that it is time that there were statutory, not voluntary, regulations to curtail the cowboys among estate agents?

Mr. Forth: I assure the House that this was not a planted question. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will consider carefully the answer that I have given rather than make a pre-prepared response. I am sure that he will find in my proposals and in the report that I have placed in the Library and Vote Office that I am dealing firmly but fairly with estate agency problems.

Mr. Latham: Can my hon. Friend confirm that any legislation that he introduces will contain a provision that

recognises that organisations such as the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors are governed by proper professional standards?

Mr. Forth: Yes, I am pleased to acknowledge the role that the RICS and many other bodies have played in bringing forward their own positive suggestions to make the property transfer market work as efficiently as possible. Let me make it clear to my hon. Friend that we are not contemplating new legislation. I am using the provisions of the Estate Agents Act 1979 in what I regard as appropriate ways.

Ms. Quin: Has the Minister found time to respond to some of the criticisms levelled at the voluntary, self-regulatory approach by some of his hon. Friends, including the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Summerson) who said that the rules of conduct should be enshrined in law and backed up by full powers of the law? Furthermore, will the Minister's proposals for regulating estate agents deal with the worst abuse at present—estate agents preferring purchasers who are also getting financial services from those estate agents?

Mr. Forth: I can confirm that that is precisely one of the matters that will be covered by my invocation of the statutory powers under section 3 of the Estate Agents Act. I am sure that when the hon. Lady and my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Summerson) study my proposals in detail, they will find that they are to their entire satisfaction.

Madrid Summit

Mr. Nigel Spearing: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the Heads of Government meeting in Madrid, with particular reference to monetary and social policy of the European Community in the light of the fourth report of the Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service which was published yesterday.
I raised under Standing Order No. 20 the matter of the agenda of the Heads of Government meeting last Thursday and was also able to set out, on the third Adjournment debate on that day, the parliamentary and procedural reasons why there should be a debate. Since then I have received no communication from the Government concerning a change of business this week which would have permitted a debate, nor have I received any adverse comment on the case that I made.
It is generally agreed that debates on EEC matters recommended by the Select Committee should be held as early as practicable and when the debates in the House can influence Ministers. That principle has been endorsed recently by the Leader of the House in a letter to the Select Committee.
The Committee made a recommendation for debate in respect of the Delors report on economic and monetary union as long ago as 10 May. We reported that
this debate should be held in good time before the European Council on 26–27 June, when the report is expected to be discussed by the Heads of Government.

Yesterday the Treasury and Civil Service Committee published its report on the Delors proposals, having heard evidence from the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Governor of the Bank of England. The final paragraph 40 reads:
We greatly regret that the Government has not accepted the recommendation of the European Legislation Committee that there should be a debate on the Delors Committee's Report before the European Council meeting at Madrid on 26 and 27 June. If the Government attaches significance to arguments about the sovereignty of Parliament it ought not to be selective in its attachment to them. The House must have an early opportunity to debate the far-reaching proposals of the Delors Committee before Her Majesty's Government adopts a position on them at high-level European meetings.
The only way in which the recommendations of those two Select Committees can be followed and a debate can be held is by making to you, Mr Speaker, this submission under Standing Order No. 20.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) seeks leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
the Heads of Government meeting in Madrid, with particular reference to monetary and social policy of the European Community in the light of the fourth report of the Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service which was published yesterday.
As the House knows, under Standing Order No. 20 1 have to decide whether this application meets the criteria of the Standing Order and to announce my decision without giving reasons to the House. I have listened with care to what the hon. Member has said but I regret that the matter that he has raised does not meet the criteria of the Standing Order. I cannot therefore submit his application to the House.

Points of Order

Mr. Robin Cook: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On 5 May the Secretary of State for Health reported to the House that he had reached agreement with the BMA negotiators over the GPs' contract. He said at the time that that was a sign of agreement by the doctors to his proposals for the Health Service.
This morning, the BMA, meeting in full session, rejected the proposed changes to the GPs' contract. In the light of the earlier statement to the House that the Secretary of State had obtained the BMA's agreement, has there been any application made to you, Mr. Speaker, for a statement now that the contract has been rejected by the BMA?
This must be a matter of particular concern to the House, as it is evident to anyone watching the broadcast media that correspondents are being briefed that it is the intention of the Secretary of State for Health to impose the GPs' contract. Would it not be a courtesy for the House to hear first whether the Government intend to embark on such a confrontation with the Health Service?

Mr. Speaker: I have had no application for a statement from the Government.

Mr. Max Madden: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will have been told that at the beginning of last night's debate on the DNA testing scheme and changes in immigration rules I and other hon. Members raised a number of points of order about leaked documents from the head of the immigration and nationality department at the Home Office and about a letter from the Home Secretary to the Leader of the House saying that last night's debate was deliberately arranged by the Government so as to avoid, in the words of the leaked document,
two separate rows about immigration issues in quick succession".
The leaked documents also made it clear that, contrary to last Wednesday's statement by the Home Secretary that no decisions had been reached on the funding of the centrally organised DNA testing scheme, the Government had decided to increase entry clearance fees on 1 November.
Lastly, and most importantly, it was made clear in the leaked document and the letter that last night's debate was arranged by the Government deliberately to divert

attention—in the document's words—from the absence of any new provisions or promises being made by the Government for and to the people of Hong Kong.
Leaked documents are becoming more and more common, but this latest one is serious because it is clear that the Government intend to deny the House any opportunity of debating in principle or in detail whether charges for DNA testing should be introduced and by how much they should be increased—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has an Adjournment debate on this matter this evening. What is the point of order for me?

Mr. Madden: The point of order is that the documents make it abundantly clear that, rather than announcing a centrally organised DNA testing scheme in a written reply, last Wednesday the Home Secretary—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should pursue this matter in his Adjournment debate. I was not present when the points of order were raised yesterday, but I have heard about them. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the debate yesterday arose in the name of the Leader of the Opposition. It was not a Government motion.

Mr. Madden: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. There is nothing more I can say on this. The hon. Gentleman must pursue the matter in his Adjournment debate tonight.

BILL PRESENTED

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE

Mr. Secretary Hurd, supported by Secretary Sir Geoffrey Howe, Mr. Secretary Walker, Mr. Secretary King, Mr. Secretary Rifkind, Mr. John Wakeham, Mr. Tony Newton and Mr. Douglas Hogg, presented a Bill to amend the law relating to the entitlement of British citizens resident outside the United Kingdom to vote at parliamentary elections and elections to the European Parliament and to increase the maximum amount of candidates' election expenses at parliamentary by-elections: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 162.]

WELSH AFFAIRS

Ordered,
That the matter of the first year of the Valleys Programme, being a matter relating exclusively to Wales, be referred to the Welsh Grand Committee for its consideration.—[Mr. Dorrelli.]

Greyhound Betting Levy

Mr. Alan Meale: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to extend the functions of the Horserace Betting Levy Board to include the sport of greyhound racing; and to make consequential amendments to the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963.
My Bill is designed to end the ridiculously unfair anomaly that currently exists in Britain between the two premier betting sports of horse racing and greyhound racing. Both sports produce billions of pounds in turnover annually, yet they are treated totally differently by the bookmaking industry, particularly in respect of the mechanism which exists under statute to enable moneys to be collected by the industry, which I shall henceforth refer to as a levy.
The bookmaking industry pays over collected amounts produced from bets placed on horse racing, but it refuses to pass on equivalent moneys deducted from punters' winnings in betting shops on greyhound racing.
My Bill seeks to amend the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963 and the Horserace Betting Levy Act 1981 to make provision for a levy scheme for greyhound racing similar to that enjoyed for a number of years by horse racing. The measure would be totally self-financing, as off-course bookmakers would pay contributions out of the bets that they take on greyhound racing to the Horserace Betting Levy Board, which would distribute the proceeds to the sport. As a result, membership of the levy board would be increased to include two representatives from the greyhound industry.
The need for such a measure is clear when it is borne in mind that, while betting offices off-course deduct the same amount from winning bets on horse and dog racing, greyhound racing does not receive its share of the revenue from those deductions. Considering that in any one year a turnover of at least £1 billion is involved in off-course greyhound racing bets, the need for such a Bill is obvious.
In practice, the bookmaking industry quietly deducts the extra 2p in the pound on winning bets, not explaining that, unlike horse racing, they keep the money on greyhound bets, a practice with which they have got away for many years. There is no rational argument for continuing with the present system, which is unfair and which borders on deceit of customers by the bookmaking fraternity.
The need for my Bill is clear in view of the level of support for the sport of greyhound racing. According to the 1989 edition of "Social Trends", greyhound racing as a spectator sport came second highest in attendance levels, being surpassed only by football. That survey showed that, in 1987, 4·8 million people attended greyhound racing events in the United Kingdom, compared with 1·38 million who attended rugby league events; 2·5 million for rugby union; 713,000 for test and county cricket; and, more important, only 4·3 million for horse racing.
The need for such legislation is clear. Greyhound racing is popular but is greatly under-financed. That has led to the loss of 13 nationally registered stadiums in the last 10 years. But while those who have made millions of pounds out of the sport—I refer, of course, to the bookmakers—get richer, the sport gets poorer. Standards of stadiums, their facilities for spectators and for racing greyhounds are getting worse.
The owners of greyhounds pay for the maintenance, training and racing of their dogs. Unlike in horse racing, their prize money does not run into thousands of pounds. It is, on average, between £14 and £26, but only if their dog comes first in the race. If they race during the day, the rate of off-course betting on those races can amount to hundreds of thousands of pounds.
At the heart of the problem is the fact that the greyhound racing industry is unable to get a fair price for its services from off-course bookmakers. Because bookmakers can exploit greyhound punters in that way, it makes sense for them to maximise their greyhound racing betting, thereby putting more pressure on the sport. Proof of that can be seen from the fact that between 1977 and 1988 the amount of off-course betting turnover on greyhound racing increased from 17·6 to 26·7 per cent., while betting on horses went down from 82 to 72 per cent. of the total.
The bookmakers argue that they do not pay the levy because most greyhound business is conducted at afternoon meetings. But that does not stop them taking bets from punters in their shops at evening racing. Nor does it stop them continuing to deduct 10p in the pound, rather than 8p, as they should be doing if they did not intend to pass on the money to the sport.
Nor do they argue with the claim that all racing is subject to National Greyhound Racing Club rules relating to stewardship, licensing, discipline and registration. That organisation continually calls for a levy for the sport of greyhound racing. In other words, they are willing to take the service but are unwilling to pay even the dues deducted for the sport.
The purpose of my Bill is to give justice to the sport of greyhound racing. The levy for the sport would not come from the bookmakers, who would merely pass it on, having taken it from the punters. That would be far preferable to allowing them simply to pocket it, as they are doing now. The money generated at current rates would mean at least £10 million per year to the sport and would enable stadiums to obtain loans to better the facilities for spectators, increase prize money in races to acceptable levels, fund necessary veterinary work, and improve security and the sport in general.
The greyhound racing industry, which is supported by millions of people, badly needs such help. Unlike the horse racing industry, it has no Jockey Club to invest, no Racecourse Association, advisory council, equine research centre, Racecourse Security Services or levy board to help it. A levy for greyhound racing would provide the necessary finance to improve the sport and protect the public who support it. The House has already agreed that horse racing needs such a levy. Surely, since it has more supporters than does horse racing, greyhound racing deserves the same treatment as horse racing.
The bookmakers argue that the sport
has no logical right to a levy and is not entitled to be subsidised by bookmakers.
The aim of this measure is to expose such statements for the nonsense that they are. The purpose of the Bill is to enshrine in law the sport of greyhound racing's undoubted moral right to a levy.
Unless we approve this motion today, we shall allow the punters, spectators, owners and trainers of greyhounds to be further deceived, as they have been so cruelly and unjustly in the past.
Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Alan Meale, Mr. Don Dixon, Mr. Menzies Campbell, Mr. Tim Smith, Mr. A. E. P. Duffy, Mr. Richard Alexander, Mr. Frank Cook, Mr. Harry Greenway, Mr. William McKelvey, Mrs. Llin Golding, Mr. Martin Redmond, and Mr. George J. Buckley.

GREYHOUND BETTING LEVY

Mr. Alan Meale accordingly presented a Bill to extend the functions of the Horserace Betting Levy Board to include the sport of greyhound racing; and to make consequential amendments to the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 7 July and to be printed. [Bill 163.]

Opposition Day

I4TH ALLOTTED DAY, IST PART

Food Safety, Research and Health

Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister. Fourteen hon. Members have so far expressed an interest in speaking in this debate. If their speeches are brief, most of them, I hope all, will be called.

Dr. David Clark: I beg to move,
That this House, noting Her Majesty's Government's failure to address the growing problem of food safety, deplores the decision to close the Institute of Food Research at Langford near Bristol with the corresponding loss of scientific expertise; believes that this will further reduce Her Majesty's Government's ability to protect the health of the British people; regrets that, two years after the Department of Health issued a consultative document on the control of food hygiene, regulations have still not been laid before Parliament; expresses concern at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food's decision to reduce veterinarians in their employ by one quarter and at the national shortage of Environmental Health Officers which leaves many posts unfilled; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to introduce more effective safety and hygiene regulations, to increase the monitoring of food production and safety and to reverse its short sighted policy of cutting research and development work.
This is a timely debate which, in a sense, is proven by the number of hon. Members who wish to participate in it. It is also timely because, after 10 years of Conservative administration, we have a food poisoning outbreak of epidemic proportions. Only last week, we had the worst outbreak for years of botulism, which is a particular nasty and deadly toxin. Last Wednesday, the Government gave what can only be described as a bizarre response to this immensely serious problem. Their response was to close the Institute of Food Research at Bristol, which ranks among the premier meat research institutes in the world.

Mr. Robert Key: rose—

Dr. David Clark: With respect, Mr. Speaker has asked us to be fairly brief, but I will give way on this point.

Mr. Key: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but surely he knows that that particular infection and toxin was not identified at Bristol, but at the public health laboratory service—the centre for applied microbiology and research at Porton Down—which has nothing to do with the closure of which he spoke.

Dr. Clark: I will treat the hon. Gentleman's intervention with the disdain that it deserves and ignore it as being absolutely irrelevant. The hon. Gentleman ought to think before he gets to his feet. No one suggested that botulism research was being done at Bristol—those were the hon. Gentleman's words-—but I will return to that point in due course.
The act of closing the Bristol institute is typical of Government's response, which is illogical, short-sighted and plain stupid. We should not be surprised that we have these food poisoning epidemics. After all, we have a Government headed by a Prime Minister whose driving philosophy is the enterprise culture and the profit motive.


She has weakened food regulations and opposed modification of them, reduced the number of staff involved in safety monitoring and slashed research into food hygiene and quality. The ethos of her Administration can be summarised in the title of the White Paper that she produced, "Lifting the Burdens". She responded positively to that theme in her speech in Nottingham during the European election campaign.
The folly of that approach can be seen most clearly in connection with food. Experience worldwide has taught us that regulation and controls are vital if food safety standards are to be maintained. As recent elections have shown, the British people have not been fooled by the Tory policy. They recognise that that approach is a recipe for an epidemic of food poisoning and a lowering of standards. That is exactly what we have in Britain in 1989.

Mr. Tim Boswell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Dr. Clark: I have already given way once, after only 30 seconds, and that intervention wasted my time and that of the House.
I know that Conservative Members object to my comments, but the facts speak for themselves. In February of this year, the National Consumer Council commissioned a poll on consumer perception of food safety. The results show that 40 per cent. of those questioned were not confident that they had sufficient information to ensure that the food that they bought was safe. Consumers have every justification for being suspicious. Basic food hygiene regulations have not kept pace with changes in food technology. Most of them were made in the days before microwave ovens, cook-chill and convenience food. The facilities for storing food in retail outlets just cannot cope.
There are horrific stories. In one food manufacturing unit in Birmingham, the owner kept an air rifle to shoot the rats running about the establishment. That is true. Practically the whole of the Royal Air Force strike command in north-east Scotland was laid low after eating oysters. It transpired that these had been supplied not from the Soviet Union but from Japan, and were labelled in Japanese, so no one preparing the oysters could read the instructions. That emphasises the need for more sensible labelling.
Those are interesting, if not amusing anecdotes, but there is a serious aspect to the problem. In 1980, a mere —I use the word advisedly—10,318 cases of food poisoning were notified, while last year that had nearly trebled to over 28,000 cases.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Dr. Clark: I know that the hon. Lady participates in these debates, usually with a great deal of intelligence, but I wish to press ahead because I am conscious of the time.
Already this year, there have been 12,396 cases of food poisoning, while in the same period last year there were 7,930. I know that Tory Members deride statistics, but they are serious and, on occasion, represent deaths.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Many of my constituents are keen on green-top milk, which is unpasteurised and

contains a helpful enzyme. They are extremely glad that my hon. Friend the Minister has given way and will allow us to retain green-top milk.

Dr. Clark: The hon. Lady has made an ingenious intervention. I am sure that her right hon. Friend the Minister will take on board those plaudits.
The House will recall that the Government's initial response to the salmonella crisis six months ago was to curtail research into salmonella at the Institute of Food Research in Bristol. The Governments folly on that occasion was astounding, but that is not the whole story. The Government were also caught unaware by botulism. They should not have been because the eminent microbiologist Professor Richard Lacey—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I should tell Conservative Members that Professor Lacey is an official adviser to the Government and to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. He actually predicted in his book, "Safe Shopping, Safe Cooking and Safe Eating" that botulism
could return unless the catering industry addresses the problem.
Professor Lacey was not being clairvoyant—he was reading the book, so to speak. Only last year, Europe's biggest botulism outbreak among cattle occurred in the United Kingdom. It was caused by a herd being fed a mixture containing chicken carcasses. Ironically, last year the Government ordered the Institute of Food Research to stop work on a project involving the feeding of chicken carcasses to cattle and the links with botulism. That is why there was no work at Bristol last week to detect the outbreaks of botulism. The Government actually stopped that work. They had learnt nothing—having stopped research into salmonella, they compounded their folly by doing the same with botulism.
What is the Government's response to the food crisis? Deep analysis reveals a twin approach. First, they believe that the interests of the public can be protected, in some perverse way, by cutting research and development and closing research establishments. Secondly, to compensate for the resulting huge gap in public health protection, the Government think that they have discovered a new panacea—irradiation. On both counts the Government are wrong.
—During recent years research projects into food safety and hygience have been axed one after another. Recently the Government decided on further closures and cuts following the so-called Barnes review. The effect of the review is to cut by £30 million the money spent on research and development in agriculture and food. The latest example of that was the closure of the institute at Bristol. That was absolutely incomprehensible. Not only will many excellent projects disappear, but more than 100 scientists will lose their jobs. With those jobs will go the experience and expertise—[HON. MEMBERS: "No".] If that is not true, I hope that the Minister will say so and give us more information. My information is that only six out of more than 100 jobs at Bristol will be relocated. The Minister should deny that if I am wrong.
In an attempt to cover up their folly, the Government have given the impression that jobs and projects will be transferred. That is a travesty of the truth. Only six jobs will be transferred and of the 80-plus projects, many involving food safety and hygiene, not more than a


handful will be transferred. If I am wrong, I challenge the Minister to say which projects will be transferred. I am sure that there will not be more than a handful.
We shall lose vital work on meat hygiene. Neither the abattoir at the Bristol institute, which allows practical experiments, nor the highly praised food processing hall are being transferred. Work on refrigeration, which is vital to food hygiene and safety is being terminated. Not only expertise, but facilities which exist nowhere else in the United Kingdom are being lost.
In the long run, the main loser from the Government's obsession with cost-cutting will be the consumer. The closure has been forced by the Government's obsession. On 22 May 1989, the Minister announced, with great pleasure, that he had managed to save £379 million in agricultural spending last year.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John MacGregor): In the CAP.

Dr. Clark: When one compares that figure with the £111 million expected expenditure on research and development for this financial year, it places Government priorities in perspective. To put it another way, the Minister's annual savings last year would have kept the Bristol institute open for 100 years. That puts the Government's policies in perspective.
The Minister has completely misjudged the position on food irradiation. Does he know that one of the foremost members of his advisory committee on irradiated and novel foods, which produced the report on irradiation in 1986 on which he places so much store, has now changed his mind about the process and has said that it is "unnecessary" and doomed to commercial failure. To quote from a recent interview with Professor Philip James, in The Press and Journal Aberdeen:
The real dilemma now is that people no longer have confidence that a Ministry of Agriculture linked to the producer and processor is going to safeguard the public interest. The public have been overwhelmed by the knowledge that certain companies have been using irradiation to salvage rotten food … It is a sad reflection of how the Government and some food manufacturers don't appear to understand how to manage affairs of public interest in the fields of health and safety.
That is a damning indictment of the Ministry by one of its top advisers.
Professor Philip James is not the only person to express concern. Various organisations, including the National Farmers Union, which is dear to the Minister's heart, and the British Medical Association, which is not so dear to the Government's heart, and prominent food retailing companies such as the Co-op, Tesco and Marks and Spencer have also expressed concern about irradiation. People not only now demand to know whether their food is to be irradiated, but why it needs to be irradiated. That is the key question that the Government should answer.
The Labour party does not believe that irradiation is the answer to our food poisoning problems. It is no alternative to ensuring that cleaner food is on sale in the shops. Irradiation would be no incentive to ensure that high hygiene standards are maintained throughout the food chain. Irradiation will leave food more open to subsequent bacteriological contamination. There is no easy and effective method of detecting whether food has been irradiated or, even more importantly, reirradiated.

To return to the recent problem of botulism, perhaps the Minister will confirm that irradiation would have had no effect on wiping out that botulism as it is a toxin.
Another point about irradiation, which has been expressed clearly by Professor James, is that it could be used to make bad food clean. The Minister will be aware, for example, that there have been verified reports of seafood being imported into Britain, mainly from the far east, which has subsequently been found to be substandard. That food has then been exported to Holland, irradiated by Gammaster and then re-imported into Britain and sold illegally—the same food that had been found to be substandard. The incident occurred three years ago, but we have good reason to believe that the trade continues. I have in my possession a letter from Gammaster dated 10 May 1989, agreeing to supply irradiated seafood to Britain. The letter states:
Our quality assurance include taking samples of each shipment of prawns before irradiation. The Dutch Food Inspectors also take samples before and after irradiation. I would like to emphasize that the irradiation of food products is not yet allowed in the United Kingdom".
However, the letter also suggests the name of the Dutch transport company which would arrange delivery of that food. A telex from the transport company—Allways Transport BV—the following day states:
in order to enable Gammaster to irradiate this consignment, it is necessary to arrange import of the goods temporarily (without paying duties or VAT of course). Before we can arrange this customs clearance we will have to present a `health certificate' in acordance with the EEC 'shrimp decree'.
Several of my hon. Friends have tabled an early-day motion on this serious matter. As it is clear from the correspondence that the trade is well organised, I hope that the Minister will pursue the case. Unfortunately, when we passed similar correspondence to his predecessor three years ago, the Government refused to act. I hope that on this occasion the Minister will respond positively.
I know that the Minister is alert to the problem because the research consultative committee residues sub-group of the Ministry of Agriculture revealed in its minutes last year that it was aware of the
potential for some commodities to arrive in the UK which already have been subjected to irradiation.
I stress that that point was made by one of the Minister's own sub-committees last year.
It is because of such uncertainties that the Labour party opposes the introduction of food irradiation in Britain. It is like using gloss paint to cover rotten window frames.
To sum up, the Government's approach to protecting the nation's health from contaminated food has been abysmal. As we have seen in the past few months, they have adopted a crisis management approach. Indeed, it is hard to understand their actions in recent months. When confronted with a food poisoning epidemic what do they do? They cut the number of staff who monitor and control diseases; they close a food research institute; they introduce food irradiation, which nobody wants; and as a final insult, they produce a leaflet putting the blame for food poisoning where it certainly does not belong—on the consumer. I hope that the House will join us in condemning the Government.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John MacGregor): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and add instead thereof:
`commends the Government for implementing a comprehensive range of measures to maintain safety throughout the food chain and to improve the scientific knowledge on which these are based; notes with approval the Agricultural and Food Research Council's decision to strengthen the work of its Institute of Food Research at the Norwich and Reading sites by expanding programmes on food safety and nutrition; endorses the Government's policy of transferring responsibility for near market research and development to industry, enabling more Government funds to be channelled into strategic research; congratulates the Government on the substantial increase in resources for research into food safety during the past ten years; and expresses confidence in the Government's policies on food safety and research and development.'.
The speech of the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) was fragmentary in the extreme and extremely fragile in its evidence. I shall demonstrate both those points.
As this is a general debate on food safety, I shall begin by setting out in framework the main elements of the Government's food safety policy. That is necessary because of the hon. Gentleman's spasmodic speech. Indeed, the main elements of our policy are consistent and thorough and are worth restating. I shall do that briefly because the Parliamentary Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Ryder), dealt with this at length in his speech in the food safety debate earlier this year, on 21 February, and because I have done so on many previous occasions. Furthermore, you, Mr. Speaker, have reminded us that this is a short debate.
The essential elements are, first, a careful and thorough monitoring of the food supply so as to be certain that whatever we do is based on a factual assessment of the situation as a whole; secondly, thorough surveillance to detect any trends that need analysis or policy action of one sort or another; and, thirdly, continuous and in-depth assessment of the facts that emerge using the best possible scientific advice.
In view of the highly selective scientific examples given by the hon. Member for South Shields, I stress that we use the best possible scientific advice over a wide range, using many people.

Mr. Brian Wilson: rose—

Mr. MacGregor: This is a short debate; I will give way once.

Mr. Wilson: Does the Minister agree that if he wants the best and most independent scientific advice, by definition any scientists who are also paid by the food industry should not be employed by the Government to give advice?

Mr. MacGregor: I shall be able to demonstrate shortly that we use a much wider range of scientific expertise, so that is a feeble attack.
The fourth essential element is decisive action, which could be legislative or advisory on the basis of the expert advice that we have received, and sometimes further research is called for. The fifth essential element is the provision of full information and guidance to the public. Indeed, we publish so much that often the problem is to get even a small proportion of it over. My hon. Friend the

Parliamentary Secretary illustrated that graphically in the last debate. The sixth essential element is proper monitoring and enforcement to ensure that legislative obligations are carried out by all in the food chain.
I have available to me substantial resources to carry out these tasks. In my Department I have more than 500 staff engaged in work on policies that relate to consumer protection. Many of them are highly qualified specialists in one branch of science or another. They provide the sound scientific basis to our assessment, enforcement and research activities.
As the House by now will know—this is the answer to the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) —we are assisted by a wide range of expert committees covering pretty well every area of food matters—to which we have just added the Richmond committee on the microbiological safety of food—to advise us on the many technological developments that are now such an important feature of modern food production. Together we have available some hundreds of independent scientists and experts drawn from the universities, medical schools, research bodies, industry, consumer backgrounds and so on—all leading experts in their particular fields and chosen for their experience and the breadth of knowledge they can bring to bear. They assist us in the assessment of risks of all kinds that are faced by any modern food producing industry, and my colleagues and I rely heavily on their advice. The Opposition keep mentioning one or two scientists. I have been emphasising that we have hundreds of scientists available to us. All aspects of the subject are considered, expertly and in considerable depth, and I stress again the scientists' independence.
The reports that are produced are published. In the case of the steering group on food surveillance there have been no fewer than 25 reports in recent year,. covering a wide range of subjects. Each of them is an authoritative scientific document on the subject under consideration. I repeat that the reports are published. But we do not just listen. We act, and we act promptly. In the last six months or so we have announced decisions on salmonella, bovine spongiform encephalopathy, mineral hydrocarbons and aldrin, and given advice on a number of other subjects. Often the action goes comparatively unnoticed in the media, but it is taken notice of by the industry and the consumer is therefore protected.

Mr. Conal Gregory: rose—

Mr. MacGregor: This will have to be the last time that I give way.

Mr. Gregory: In acknowledging, as the Opposition did not, that some £20 million was spent last year in support of food safety, I think that any hon. Member would accept that there is independent advice which the Department uses skilfully, but that it is implemented at the sharp end by environmental health officers. Will my hon. Friend confirm that he will issue central guidelines to the environmental health officers? Otherwise they will go off at different tangents and will interpret the expert advice in different ways which could be misleading to the public. I know that that is not my right hon. Friend's intention.

Mr. MacGregor: We try to give advice and guidance wherever we can. If my hon. Friend has particular points in mind, perhaps he will write to me about them and I shall consider them.
One interesting example of the action that we take relates to certain chemical substances in cling film. Following analysis, our scientists in the Ministry advised that there was a small risk of some leaching to the food contained therein. In immediate consultation with the industries the substances were changed and even any potential slightest risk to the consumer was removed. All this demonstrates that there is no complacency whatever, only constant vigilance.
With the rapid changes in consumer habits these days, including the trend to fast and convenience foods and one-stop weekly shopping on the one hand, and the rapid developments in food technology and processes on the other, there can never be any cause for complacency. I point that out to the hon. Member for South Shields. Most of the Governments of Western Europe, the United States Government and others are finding new salmonella problems with particular types-—in the end we are talking about two types out of more than 2,000 strains—with listeria and with campylobacter at present.
As for botulism, with which the hon. Member for South Shields began his speech, if its continued existence is thought to be a sign of failure—the word in the Opposition motion—then it must be said that we in this country have achieved a measure of success that most other countries would be only too pleased to emulate.
The current outbreak, highly regrettable as it is, is nevertheless only the tenth in more than 65 years. The citizens of such countries as the United States, the Federal Republic of Germany, France and the Netherlands—often held up, and rightly, as examples, like ourselves, of countries with high safety records and standards—are many times more likely to suffer from botulism than we are here.
I heard what the hon. Member for South Shields said about Professor Lacey and his book. Professor Lacey did not predict a botulism outbreak. In fact, the evidence to date of the present botulism outbreak points to a canned hazelnut preparation. Professor Lacey stated that
the risk of food poisoning by canned food is tiny.
The action that we have taken on salmonella and BSE is typical of the serious and determined way in which we pursue our responsibilities.
As the House knows, the Government have adopted to date a comprehensive package of 19 measures to tackle this new salmonella problem in order to minimise the potential risk to public health.

Dr. David Clark: Seventeen measures.

Mr. MacGregor: It was 17, but we are constantly doing what we believe is right to add to them. I am sorry that the hon. Member for South Shields cannot keep up with our pace on this matter.
One of the 19 measures is the food safety guidance leaflet. I was extremely sorry to hear the hon. Member for South Shields, who is normally very responsible in these matters, say that that was shifting the blame—or words to that effect—on to the consumer. He knows that research has shown that, because of the modern developments to which I have referred—such as weekly one—stop shopping —and the new food technologies, much of the risk of food poisoning can take place after the manufacturing process. Therefore, any responsible Government should give advice to consumers as to how, at their end of the food chain, they can protect themselves from food poisoning. I cannot imagine why the hon. Gentleman denigrates our

action of supplying the food safety leaflet. That is a sign of gross irresponsibility. I believe that he has been proved wrong by the fact that it is a best seller, and we shall almost certainly have to reprint it shortly. It shows that we are meeting a positive and, I think, a desirable demand.

Dr. David Clark: I noticed that the Minister moved quickly away from the 17 salmonella measures. He knows that he announced 17, but in a written answer, dated 19 June, that I received from the Parliamentary Secretary I was told that two of the key issues still wait to be laid before the House. When will we get the document—three months later?

Mr. MacGregor: I have not moved off the subject yet, so I do not know what the hon. Gentleman is talking about. I am still dealing with the 19 measures. We have announced all the measures. We have nearly all of them in place and we are carrying all the others through with all due speed. As he knows, some of them require consultation and then parliamentary action. We have announced that we are taking 19 specific measures on the new salmonella problem.

Mr. Paul Marland: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the latest information from the public health laboratory shows that, despite a recent increase in the consumption of chicken and poultry generally, the incidence of salmonella has dropped considerably? Does that not show that the measures that have been introduced by my right hon. Friend and the industry have been a great success?

Mr. MacGregor: As my hon. Friend knows, like other countries, we were faced with a new problem. It is obviously encouraging if there is a change in the trend of cases. We must maintain our vigilance, and the measures remain important. I do not believe that the measures will fully bite for some time—not until they take full effect. I want to be clear about that.
We have taken those 19 measures at all possible stages in the chain from the animal feeding stuffs level, through breeding flocks and hatcheries, to laying flocks and on into the home.
All in all, we are making extremely good progress in introducing those important measures in Britain. No other country in the world has such an impressive range of measures to tackle this exceptionally complex problem.
On the totally new disease of BSE, the moment our veterinary scientists identified what the problem was I set up the Southwood committee; then stopped the feed protein source of the disease, again as soon as our scientists—they were ours—concluded that this was the most likely source; and acted immediately on all the interim and final recommendations of that committee.
Last week I announced that further measures would be taken. Those will ensure that brain and spinal cord, together with certain other bovine offals, cannot be used for human consumption in any way.
I can assure the House that if the scientific evidence and advice suggests that other actions are needed we shall take them. In resource terms the commitment to BSE alone is likely to be in excess of £6 million this year. That, too, is a demonstration of how speedily and responsibly we act.
The emergence of new diseases, like the rapid rate of technological change in the food chain, places increasing demands on the flexibility of the system. It was for that


reason among others that we felt that it was desirable to undertake a substantial review of the existing food legislation, which has generally served us well but which needs to be appropriate for all the demands of the 1990s, including developments on the European Community front. I suspect that the hon. Member for South Shields is with me on that.
That is why we have been undertaking a major consultation exercise with over 500 organisations, including many consumer groups, and, as a result, have concluded that the law should be adjusted in the light of changing circumstances. We shall be bringing forward new legislation as soon as the parliamentary timetable permits.
I would expect new legislation to include strengthened controls in the areas of food hygiene—notably powers to require food premises to register with their local authority and powers to require the training of those who handle food; the introduction of emergency control orders to improve our ability to act in food emergencies, although, as the hon. Gentleman knows, we have already taken some action in the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985, introduced by the Government, which enabled me to deal with the Chernobyl situation; and powers to control novel foods and processes as well as a whole range of other changes designed to make food law and its enforcement more effective today to meet any new challenges that may arise.
Just as new technical problems can arise from new processes, so technology can give us new weapons in our armoury to enhance food safety and consumer protection. Let me deal with one such new weapon which the hon. Gentleman has mentioned. I want to begin by stressing that it is only one of many weapons in our armoury; it is not the panacea that the hon. Gentleman claimed it would be. In doing so, I hope that I shall answer all his points on food irradiation.
The House is aware that last year on 4 February we announced that the Government accepted in principle that the ban on irradiated food should be lifted, provided that —this was an important proviso—the proper control framework could be established. Therefore, we set up a working party to consider all the issues related to that control system and to make recommendations, and the House knows that I recently received its report.
I am today publishing that report. Copies are being made available in the Vote Office and in the Library. Based on the recommendations in the report, the Government intend to make available to the consumer and to the food industry the option of that additional measure for protecting certain foods. As I shall elaborate in a moment, there will be a number of opportunities for the House to consider that further in full. But I think it would be helpful if today I outline some of the key points.
First, I want to stress that the Government are basing their decision fundamentally on food safety and consumer grounds—on food safety, that irradiation has a useful contribution to make—a contribution, not the total answer—to the reduction of food—borne disease in certain products, and in some cases better than by other means; and for consumers, provided that we have the proper control and information framework, that it would be wrong to deprive consumers of the freedom to choose

food treated by that safety method if they wish to avail themselves of it. It will not be thrust upon anyone. I repeat, it will not be thrust upon anyone.

Mr. Eric Martlew: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

Mr. MacGregor: No. I have already given way a lot in this short debate.
I know that some have drawn attention to the ability of the process to extend the shelf life of some fruits by delaying their ripening processes. That, too, is a consumer benefit in that what the housewife buys will last longer in the home. But that is not why the Government are proposing to legalise this process, and I wish to underline that. It was considerations of food safety that were predominant in reaching our decision.
It may be helpful if I remind the House of the background to the subject. There is a mistaken impression that food irradiation is something new about which we ought to learn much more before permitting its use in this country, but that is far from being the case. The first patent on food irradiation was taken out as long ago as 1921, so it saw the light of day well before the birth of most current right hon. and hon. Members of this House, myself included. Considerable research on the process has been undertaken over more than 40 years, and scientists tell me that it has been subject to much closer scrutiny worldwide than any other food process.
The safety of the process was established long ago by distinguished authorities of unimpeachable international standing. Top level joint expert committees of the principal international agencies, including the World Health Organisation and the Food and Agriculture Organisation, carried out in-depth safety evaluations over a period of years in the 1970s and confirmed in a report in 1980 that food irradiation up to an overall average dose of 10 kilogray is safe and introduces no special nutritional or microbilogical problems. That report was adopted by the Codex Alimentarius Commission in 1983.
Similar conclusions were reached following full assessments by other national and international bodies. The process's safety, for example, was confirmed by the European Community's Scientific Committee for Food and by the United State's Food and Drugs Administration.

Mr. David Curry: Will my right hon. Friend allow me to intervene?

Mr. MacGregor: If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I should like to continue because I know that many other right hon. and hon. Members wish to speak.
Nevertheless, we adopted a thoroughly careful attitude and put in hand our own independent expert assessment. In 1982 we established the Advisory Committee on Irradiated and Novel Foods under the chairmanship of Sir Arnold Burgen, Master of Darwin college, Cambridge. The committee comprised distinguished specialists in all aspects of the subject. Its report, published in 1986, concluded that if correctly applied and up to the level of dose stipulated in the international research of 10 kilogray, irradiation is an effective and efficient form of food preservation treatment.
The committee was satisfied as to the safety and wholesomeness of the food that would result from irradiation and made it clear that for all practical purposes


there would be no change in the low level of radioactivity that food naturally contains. In 1987 the committee was reconvened to consider scientific responses to its report and, having done so, reaffirmed its conclusions.
I set out that history to make absolutely clear one basic point—that the safety of food irradiation has been assessed repeatedly over the years by people both in this country and abroad whose highly specialised training and experience best qualifies them to assess all aspects of the technique. The process has been cleared through the most comprehensive set of evaluations.

Mr. Wilson: But who is asking for it?

Mr. MacGregor: I shall come to that point shortly.
No qualifications have been expressed, and no areas of safety remain outstanding. That is demonstrated by the number of countries that already allow use of the process. It is permitted in 35 countries around the world, and is already in operation in 21 of them. Those countries include the United States and four member states of the European Community. It may come as a surprise that we too permit irradiaton and have done so for the past 20 years or more. Throughout that time, irradiated food has been supplied to a limited number of cancer patients who, by reason of their disease or treatment, are at high risk of infection. We have recognised that those vulnerable members of our society, who require the most carefully controlled and safest diet that we can secure, have found it through irradiated food.
What are the advantages of irradiation for consumers generally? I shall deal shortly with the question of choice but first I must set the important scene of safety as a whole. The World Health Organisation is clear that by killing or greatly reducing the number of micro-organisms naturally present in food, irradiation has a useful contribution to make in reducing some—and I stress some—food-borne disease. Obviously, it cannot be used to treat all food products because in some cases it can affect taste and other qualities. Nevertheless, it is important in reducing some food-borne disease.
Irradiation has, for example, been shown to be effective in dealing with bacteria such as salmonella, listeria and campylobacter. It is not suitable for all foodstuffs, as I have already emphasised, but it has proved its value as a treatment for poultry meat. It is so used already in France and other countries, and the BMA's recent publication "Infection Control" mentions its particular effectiveness for the purpose. Some shellfish can also be successfully treated.
Second, for certain produce such as herbs and spices irradiation can be used to destroy insects, pests and bacterial contamination in place of the existing chemical fumigation methods, about some of which there are concerns on health grounds. For example, the chemical ethylene oxide, which is used for that purpose, is now banned in many countries of the European Community and will shortly no longer be available for use. Manufacturers and consumers need some means of being able to continue to make herbs and spices available without infestation.
All this is extending consumer choice, not damaging it. It is an effective way of dealing with some bacteria and hugs, but of course the essential pre-condition is a proper control mechanism. The Food Act gives the possibility of providing for the registration of irradiation facilities by

local authorities. The Government have concluded, however, that it is preferable to have a full licensing system under central Government control, rather than through local authorities. Closer and more specialised supervision will he achieved through the concentration of the powers by central administration than if the responsibility is diffused. This will permit detailed inspection by specialists and the imposition of precise conditions with the granting of licences. It will mean delaying the introduction of food irradiation until we can obtain more extensive powers in the new food Bill, but we think it right to do so.
Conditional upon the licence will be the maintenance of clear and full records, which will be regularly inspected and will allow for the tracing of consignments treated and the verification, through the recording instrument readings, of the dose applied. A further provision will be a requirement that full documentation must accompany each consignment leaving the irradiated plant, so that recipients of irradiated food at any point in the distribution chain are aware of the treatment that has been given.
Apart from inspection of the documentation and of the measuring instruments—the dosimeters—the premises would also be subject to the normal local authority controls on food hygiene. It would be necessary for local authorities to satisfy themselves that good manufacturing practices were being followed and that, in particular, there was proper segregation of treated and untreated foodstuffs and the possibility of contamination after treatment was avoided.
For imported supplies it will be necessary for us to make arrangements to check that the control systems applied and the standards achieved by countries wishing to export to the United Kingdom are equivalent to the controls and standards to be applied in this country. If the European Community's proposal goes ahead, action will of course follow on a Community basis, but, whether Community or national arrangements need to be made, we are quite clear that proper reassurances must be obtained.
As important as the control framework is that consumers should be able to make an informed choice, so that those who do not want irradiated food can be assured that they are not buying it.

Mr. Martlew: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. MacGregor: I think that I must move on as I must also answer the debate.

Mr. Martlew: Will the Minister give way on that specific point?

Mr. MacGregor: There will be plenty of opportunities for the hon. Gentleman to speak. In any case, I am about to give the answer: making consumers aware whether they are buying irradiated food means labelling.

Mr. Martlew: Will the Minister give way on that point?

Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman can make his contribution during the debate, and there will be many other opportunities.
I assure the House that the Government will insist on a firm requirement for full and clear labelling of all irradiated food and listed ingredients. We want wording that will be clearly understood, and the options that we have in mind, are "irradiated" and "treated with ionising radiation".
I am sure that the House will want to debate this issue in full, and as we must seek new powers there will be plenty of opportunities to do so. There may also be a chance to debate it before the summer recess if time can be found to consider European Community document No. 10377/88 on this subject, which the European Community Scrutiny Committee has recommended for debate. There will thus be many occasions to respond to the concerns and to dispel the myths, but today I should like to deal with the two most common ones.
First, it is argued that the treatment should not be allowed in the absence of a detention test that can confirm its use. There are plenty of views to the contrary. The World Health Organisation did not consider that necessary; nor did Codex or the United States Food and Drug Administration. Moreover, our own advisory committee gave particular attention to the point. It concluded that, while a detection test could be a useful supplement to a control system based on licensing and documentation, such as we shall have, it was not necessary for the satisfactory operation of controls. Furthermore, none of the 21 countries already allowing irradiation and operating control systems around the world considered it necessary to wait for the availability of a diagnostic method. The crucial factor is the control system, but given that a diagnostic method could be a useful supplement we shall continue to fund the research work that we are doing on this.
Second, it is argued that irradiation can somehow be misused to make bad food good. I am advised that this is simply nonsense. Irradiation cannot improve appearance, it cannot disguise taste, it cannot mask unpleasant odours. If food is not of acceptable microbiological standard, then these factors will give it away. Food irradiation will not save it.
Moreover, we intend to provide for the examination of food prior to treatment, and we shall be providing that food that does not meet the normal acceptable standards of the industry shall not be irradiated. It will remain an offence to sell or offer for sale unfit food, whether irradiated or not.
Therefore, I commend the working party's report to the House and the Government's decisions upon it. I repeat that irradiation is not a panacea for food safety. I do not, and never will, suggest that it is. It is only one weapon in our large armoury. All the other measures I have talked about today and on other occasions continue to be important parts of the whole surveillance, regulatory and legislative framework that we have to ensure the highest standards of food safety. However, it does offer for certain products a further and successful way of enhancing safety. It can provide clear consumer benefits. In our view, it is now wrong to deprive the food producer and the consumer of the free choice to avail themselves of it, if they wish to do so, and it is on that basis that I am making this announcement today.
Let me underline that point once and for all. Consumers in Britain, under a Conservative Government, enjoy a right to safety, a right to be informed and a right to choose. Irradiated food is safe, irradiated food will be properly labelled and consumers will have the right to buy it and the right to refuse to buy it. Only an irresponsible Government, neglectful of consumer interests, would deny

British consumers the same protection as is already afforded to consumers in over 20 other countries. All this demonstrates the responsible and carefully considered approach of the Government to food safety matters. I can hardly say the same about some of the allegations of the Opposition.
The other day the hon. Member for South Shields alleged on "The World this Weekend"—and he has said it again, in part, today—that they have documentary evidence—repeated examples, he said—of seafood coming into this country, being declared as unfit for human consumption and then being exported, irradiated and reimported back here. He said that these companies had actually been flouting the law and that
the Government has known about it, has turned a blind eye and indeed appear to be encouraging these companies to break the law.
These are serious allegations. I shall therefore be quite fair with the hon. Member for South Shields—and, I hope, quite clear. I should be concerned about any allegations of companies flouting the law. I have therefore checked whether we knew about them. We did not. I have made clear publicly that I would be happy to look at any evidence that the hon. Gentleman can give us.
In the same programme the hon. Gentleman said that he would pass this information on to me. That was 11 days ago. So far I have not received anything from him, but I hope that I shall do so shortly. [Interruption.]

Mr. Frank Cook: rose—

Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman said that there had been "repeated examples" of seafood coming into this country, and he said that they were recent repeated examples. The only allegations that I can find are in early-day motion 950, signed by a number of his hon. Friends, making allegations about named companies. Is that the evidence that the hon. Gentleman had in mind? I should be very interested to know whether that is the evidence.

Dr. David Clark: I did not pass it on to the Minister previously—[Interruption.] If hon. Members will be patient for a little longer I shall explain why. Three years ago we passed information to the Minister's predecessor —[Interruption.] Hon. Members must let me finish—including the certificates of irradiation from Gammaster. The Minister's predecessor refused to act upon that information. I have the information and I shall pass it on to the Minister. I made it quite clear today that I would pass it on to the Minister, but I wanted to make sure that it was on the record in the House before I did so. Only by doing so could I guarantee a response from the Minister. I think that the Minister will look into the matter seriously in view of the Government's record. That is why I did not pass it on to him.

Mr. MacGregor: That is a frightfully feeble answer. With respect to the hon. Gentleman, it suggests that he is more interested in grabbing headlines than in dealing with serious issues responsibly.
Let me tell the hon. Gentleman that there was one case, involving Young's, in January 1985. The company received a severe warning at the time and there is no evidence that anything has happened involving that company since. That is the only case of which I and my Ministry know. That was only one example four years ago and the hon. Gentleman has never suggested otherwise.


The hon. Gentleman said on "The World this Weekend" that we had evidence of repeated examples. We have no such evidence; therefore, I had to turn to the early-day motion.
Some of the companies named are Dutch, and some of the imputed actions referred to in the early-day motion took place in other countries. It is not for me to comment on those since they would he matters for other authorities. But let me tell the hon. Gentleman that if this is his evidence, all three British food importing firms referred to have firmly denied the stories, and indeed my Department's regular contacts with the authorities in the Netherlands have provided no information that would support the Opposition's claims.
I repeat that 1 am ready to look at any evidence. But I think it is disreputable to name companies in an early-day motion without firm evidence, and I am not surprised that the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) has firmly, on the Order Paper, rejected the allegation made against one of the firms. I shall look at any evidence, but ultimately the best guarantee of dealing with the issue and ensuring that irradiation is used responsibly and properly is to have the new control system that we have in place.
I ask the House to contrast the difference in the approach of the two parties—the Government's careful, thorough consideration based on the fullest scientific evidence, the establishment of a proper control framework, making a very useful device for food safety available to consumers who want it, and the irresponsible allegations by the Opposition.
I turn briefly to some of the other charges made by the hon. Gentleman in his speech today. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary will deal with one or two other matters in winding up. I shall turn first to research and development on which the hon. Gentleman concentrated and in which he knows I have a particular interest.
I make no apology for the Government's approach to the funding of near market research and development because I am sure that it makes sense. It is right that the Government should review their priorities on research and development across the board from time to time, and that is what we have been doing. It is right to ask the agrochemical and farming industries to fund the near market development work, that is that which is close to commercial exploitation—as they do in any other industry. That work is to their benefit—they can better assess the commercial possibilities and are more likely that way to carry the results through to full development in the market place—and it avoids duplication. We estimate the industry itself is funding more than £300 million a year of R and D, most of it probably near market.
But that is a different matter from research on food safety, which is not affected. Indeed we are now spending over £10 million a year on food safety and nutrition research, and it has been steadily increasing. It is noteworthy that expenditure on food research has more than doubled in real terms under this Government and since the Opposition left office.
Last week's decision by the Agricultural and Food Research Council to consolidate the work of its Institute of Food Research at its Norwich and Reading sites has to be seen in this context. The near market research from which Government support is being withdrawn at the food research institute is work on eating quality, flavours, shelf life and non-food safety aspects of food processing. That

work is of interest to the industry and we hope it will fund it, but it is not related to food safety or other public good issues and I want to be absolutely clear on this point.
So far as food safety is concerned, the decision to restructure the IFR means: more scientists working together on food research at Reading and Norwich, in a more focused way, using the most sophisticated equipment and technology available; an enhanced capacity to deal with a wide range of micro-organisms, including salmonella, listeria and those causing botulism; and increased funding for research in these and other food safety areas.
In Norwich and Reading, the United Kingdom will continue to possess a world-class Institute of Food Research. It will ensure a sound science base which can address and resolve issues of concern to the consumer, the housewife, the man in the street, the producer and industry. For food safety there are real, positive gains.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: It is absolutely wrecking the national fruit variety collections at Brogdale.

Mr. MacGregor: I want to move on.
Had time permitted, I should have liked to deal with a number of other issues relating to early-day motions and my hon. Friend will try to deal with some of them when he replies to the debate.
Finally, I want to touch on one matter not raised by the hon. Gentleman this afternoon, pesticides. The Government have taken more action than any other on pesticides. We have a proper statutory system of approval, registration and control for the first time. No one has the right to sell a pesticide, to store it, advertise it or use it unless it has been given safety clearance and approval by Ministers. That is all in the interests of consumers and users.
Before there is any possibility of approval the company has to have tested the safety of the product in terms of health and the environment and its efficacy in use. And there is thorough independent, scientific evaluation.
An independent committee, the Advisory Committee for Pesticides, makes a scientific assessment.
Detailed monitoring takes place thereafter, not least by the working party on pesticides residues. Regular sampling takes place. From time to time concern about pesticides emerges and it is important to set out what we have in place.
Such a control system needs to be completed with an enforcement regime and a policy of public information and guidance in which our agricultural inspectorate plays a crucial part.
Against the background of a control system which is as comprehensive as we can devise and as expert as we can get I have to report to the House an extraordinary incident which occurred last week.
A few days before that, my officials became aware that the Labour party was advertising in one of its magazines two insecticides. My officials established to their satisfaction that the products advertised had no approval, and that the advertisement showed no regard to the legal requirements. Without reference to Ministers my officials did what they would do to any other trader who appeared to be breaking the law, and issued a notice requiring that the Labour party ceased selling non-approved products, and ensured that advertisements observe the established regulations.
Imagine my astonishment when the first I heard of this was, via the press, a letter from the general secretary of the Labour party demanding that I repudiate the actions of my officials immediately. So there we have it from the party professing such environmental and safety concern —one law for the Labour party on pesticide regulations and another for everybody else; great moral huffing and puffing as far as everyone else is concerned and unrighteous indignation when the law is applied to the Labour party.
The hon. Gentleman talked about deregulation. It is the Labour party's version of deregulation. For the Labour party it means deregulation beyond the law. That sums it up.
The Opposition spokesman has admitted that his party came to food issues very late. He said that it was a huge field that the Opposition had neglected. The Opposition are willing to throw about wild allegations without proper assessment of the facts and throw their weight about to get me to ask my officials to bend the law in their favour. The Government devote very substantial resources to food safety matters and give them high priority, have a well-established set of mechanisms for obtaining the best scientific evidence and advice, take effective action promptly and give the highest priority to consumer protection and consumer choice. That is why I have no hesitation in commending the Government amendment and urging the House to reject the Opposition motion.

Dr. Lewis Moonie: In a long and dismal procession of incompetent Ministers who have paraded themselves before the House in recent months we have surely heard one of the worst this afternoon. The only "green" thing about the Minister's Department is probably the tie worn by the Parliamentary Secretary.
Two aspects stand out from today's debate: first, the woeful incompetence of the Ministries entrusted with responsibility for public health in this country; secondly, the need to define clearly the objectives that we should be pursuing. The failure of the relevant Ministries is most clearly shown by the disjointed, defensive and reactive approach adopted by the Minister this afternoon. I shall pass over his speech, except for a reference to the irradiation of food, which is a disturbing development.
In passing, I should say that I am sponsored by the Co-operative movement and thus represent the major food producer in this country. It has come out clearly against irradiation. I hope that other hon. Members who speak today will also declare their interests and tell us which of them are in the pockets of big business and which represent the interests of the farmers. People should not imagine for a moment that Conservative Members will not be speaking from prejudice or self-interest, just like the lap dogs in the Ministry who are in the pockets of the agricultural companies and of food production interests. Speaking of lap dogs, the Minister's parliamentary private secretary might be called the rottweiler of big business, although, come to think of it, rottweiler is not a good description of the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart).
We must examine the whole of food policy, not just parts of it. The Minister selected a few non-diseased trees from the wood and concentrated on them, but we must

look at the whole picture—the production, distribution, processing and consumption of food, and its impact on our health.
First, let us examine the direct effects which cause illness. The Minister rightly touched on many of the worrying items. Salmonellosis is still the single largest cause of major food poisoning—at least of notified cases, if not of all cases seen in clinical practice. Other conditions are related to the consumption of milk—brucellosis, tuberculosis and campylobacter are all still major causes of ill health. I deprecate any attempt to retain the sale of unpasteurised milk in England and Wales. Such attempts are shameful. We have not had this problem for many years in Scotland and that is exemplified by the much lower incidence of these conditions there. I hope that the Minister will not listen to the more foolish among his hon. Friends—and among mine—who are trying to persuade him that people should be allowed to consume unpasteurised milk. There is compelling evidence that they should not. I know of no public health authority in this country or in any other that would recommend the drinking of unpasteurised milk, which affects not only the health of the individual consumer but can play a part in a chain of infection leading to the infection of innocent people.
There are other direct causes of illness—the contamination of food, the use of hormones in production, the over-use of antibiotics and the largely unknown and ill-defined effects that they may have on the quality of our food. I know that the Government and the EEC are closely examining additives, although perhaps not in as well co-ordinated a way as they might.
I do not blame only the Minister or this Government. This problem has gone on for a long time and is hardly new. The problem of food poisoning did not begin with the rather warped description of a diseased chicken by a former Under-Secretary of State for Health last year. A succession of Ministers and civil servants have failed to protect public health for a long time.
We must also look into the introduction of more sinister elements to the equation. Growth hormones are being used in meat production, not necessarily in this country, but in others from which meat may be imported to this country. The use of irradiation and of new processes such as cook-chill require close attention to detail. I welcome the fact that the Government are introducing a food Bill in the next Session of Parliament and I look forward with interest to reading it, but I still contend that it will not solve the major problem, which is that there is no co-ordinated food policy in this country. Until we have one, problems will continue to arise and need to be dealt with. I grant that some problems have been dealt with promptly, but they were unforeseen. We should look for problems before they arise and try to prevent them from occurring in the first place.
A bad diet indirectly affects people's health. I have mentioned that before and shall go on mentioning it until Ministers of whichever party happens to be in power listen. Bad diet has a sinister, persistent and all-pervasive effect on health. The fat and sugar content of such diets is still far too high. Bad diet can lead to diabetes, heart disease and some forms of cancer. We tend to forget that poverty leads to the inadequate consumption of calories and to an insufficiently balanced diet, and so to ill health. For all their denials, the Government have introduced


poverty in full measure to this country over the past few years to an extent that we never thought possible in a civilised society.
From the vast range of problems that I have attempted to outline it must be clear that major improvements in health will only follow action to create a proper food policy which has as its primary objective the improvement of our national diet, not the protection of the interests and well-being of food producers. Confusion reigns at present. Many Ministries are involved—the Department of Health, the Department of Social Security, which deals with aspects of the poverty 1 have mentioned, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Department of the Environment and the Treasury, which ultimately controls what we are allowed to spend. The Minister, with his familiarity with that Department, is only too well aware of the problems that it can create for the best intentioned of schemes.
All these Departments have conflicting objectives and lack definition and the co-ordination of a common purpose. We have three choices: we can do nothing; we can examine the possibility of setting up a food Ministry —with all the difficulties that that would entail—in an attempt to co-ordinate the work of the different Departments; or we can follow the example that the Government set two years ago when alcohol problems became so manifest. They used the auspices of the Leader of the House to set up a ministerial committee to co-ordinate the efforts of different Departments. That has proved much more successful than I—somewhat sceptical of this type of approach—was at first prepared to admit. Such a committee might be a means of ensuring proper developments.
The Government's record is unsound and is best shown in two areas—first, in their attitude to poverty, of which I shall mention one specific example. Many young pregnant women cannot purchase an adequate diet because they have low incomes. This has been borne out time and again by observers and it is a problem that will not go away. It damages not only the woman's health but the future health of her child. The Government should look into this problem carefully.
The second aspect has already been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark). The Institute of Food Research in Bristol is a good example of this. The Minister did not mention it today; perhaps he merely overlooked it and the Parliamentary Secretary will refer to it later. The Government are pursuing the mirage of near-market research. They believe that, merely because something will clearly benefit the public, it will be picked up by commercial organisations, which will perceive it as being of benefit to themselves.

Miss Emma Nicholson: I am anxious to correct the hon. Gentleman because in what appears to be his peroration he is going from one pinnacle to another without bothering to stop to consider a problem and to find proper solutions. In the last point to which he referred he was wrong, as he has been wrong all along. It is not a question of near-market research meaning that when something is of public benefit it will be taken up by commercial companies. The idea of near-market research is that when something is of commercial benefit companies will take it up and pay for

that research. When it is for the public good and demonstrates no immediate, near commercial benefit, the Government will continue that research.

Dr. Moonie: Unfortunately, what the Government define as near-market research and how companies define it are very different, as can be seen from the number of projects that are dropped by the Government and not taken up by the companies concerned, despite a clearly demonstrated value to public health. Companies are in business to make money, not to care for Members of this House and their constituents. The balance sheet at the end of the day is their objective, and that determines their activities, not any altruistic concern for the public health.
Even so, some companies, particularly the one with which I am involved—but also companies such as Marks and Spencer—have gone out of their way to develop sound practices in the handling of food. I accept that, but they have not gone out of their way to share them with any other companies because, obviously, to do so would not be to their commercial advantage.
Not only near-market research is important. The Government are also attempting to cut back on research which is seen by most people to be of limited value to the market but which is of vital importance to the future well-being of, for example, plant research in Britain. I refer to reports that the Government are cutting back on research at several plant stations, particularly at Wellsbourne, Rosemaun and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) mentioned, Brogdale.
Those stations, Brogdale in particular, contain genetic material which, if not kept, will be lost to the world for ever. This material stretches back to different varieties of fruit and vegetables for centuries, much of which has not been properly explored. Much of it could provide cross-breeding of different varieties of fruit and vegetables which could then be developed for consumption in this country and perhaps improve the quality and variety of food to which we are exposed.
It is shameful that the Government will not maintain research at those plants. The issue has been taken up by the scientific press, in particular recently by the New Scientist. Wellsbourne has been described by the International Board for Plant Genetic Resources in Rome as one of the most important temperate vegetable gene banks in the world. Hon. Members will appreciate that it is not simply a matter of my concern. It affects the public generally and it is regrettable that the organisation is not receiving the funds that it needs to keep going.
I have tried to demonstrate how, in a wide variety of areas, the Government have failed to act responsibly. They have failed to perceive that the whole is much greater than the sum of its parts, particularly the few parts to which the Minister referred today. Until the Government accept that principle, we will not develop the type of food policy that our people deserve.

Mr. Jerry Wiggin: About 10 years ago I found myself with junior ministerial responsibility both for the food industry and for agricultural research. The then Agricultural Research Council was funded equally by the Department of Education and Science and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
I took the opportunity at that time of visiting many research institutes to look at their work. I am not a scientist, but as a practical farmer and having visited university and research institutions over the years, I feel practically qualified—I put it no higher than that—to make a judgment about the quality of work being done in, and of the scientists working at, those institutes 10 years ago.
I found that all was not well. Where the scientists were excellent—and there were many—they were grossly underpaid and were reluctant to stay in the employment of the ARC. They were leaving in large numbers to go to industry and into outside research. Where they were elderly and burnt-out, they were being feather-bedded into retirement by an organisation that was well capable of extracting funds from the Government, whether for basic or practical research.
I expressed my concern about that state of affairs over a lengthy period, and although hon. Members will appreciate that two years is too short a time to turn round such a vast ship as a research council, I am sure that those civil servants who were responsible in the Ministry had no doubt of my concern and displeasure. That subsequently was translated by my successor into a welcome change when the ARC became the AFRC, recognising the importance of food and reorganising the way in which it allocated funds for research.

Mr. Marland: During his time as a Minister and while visiting laboratories, did my hon. Friend discover much duplication of research? Did it occur to him that there might be possibilities of saving money because one job was being done in two or three different places?

Mr. Wiggin: That was the case. For example, the ARC ran two fruit research stations. Given the size of the industry, that did not seem necessary, but many matters of that type have been put right. I am referring to the situation 10 years ago. The recent changes in funding, in the first instance, and, more important, the approach of the AFRC in putting out much of its work to universities and outside institutes, as well as in supporting individuals in the work that they are doing, is to be welcomed, and I totally support the action that the Government have taken.
I hope that in dreaming up projects for near-market application, civil servants will not become too imaginative because there have been some examples where there is no possibility of industry being interested. That is where a common-sense approach must be taken.
The change is deeply traumatic to those who work in the institutes, and the frustration felt and the insecurity in general has frequently meant that many leading scientists in institutes have left, either leaving research altogether or going to work for private industry. When leading scientists leave an institute, that has a demoralising effect on others, and a damaging cycle begins.
Well-informed though they are in the AFRC, the news of closures and changes spreads rapidly. The morale of many employees has been poor for some time, and nowhere worse than at the food research institute at Langford in my constituency. I have always enjoyed excellent relations with the staff of the institute and I have been a visitor there on many occasions. Although

forewarned for a considerable time, I was extremely sad to learn last week of the final decision by the AFRC to close the institute in its present form.
Few of the scientists will be offered jobs elsewhere. Some will be, and naturally I am worried about the local employees—the laboratory assistants and staff who work on the farms and in the abattoir—who will not be able to move. But I feel that I am insufficiently informed—as is the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr, Clark)—to tell the AFRC how to run its business.
That organisation is deliberately at arm's length from Government, and I therefore find the wording of the Opposition motion strange, since it is the responsibility of the AFRC, not of the Government, to administer its funds and to decide to which projects to put its work. Indeed, the Ministry of Agriculture funds its projects through the AFRC as an arm's length operation. I am not qualified to tell that body, in acting with taxpayers' money, how best to operate.
But I am keen to assist those who believe that they can save some of the specialist facilities at Langford. There is a unique opportunity for another organisation to take over the institute's facilities and building. I have in mind Bristol university, the veterinary school of which is world famous and which is also sited at Langford.
There is a possibility that with funding from the Ministry of Agriculture—I hope that the Minister will be in a position to comment positively on this matter—the Meat and Livestock Commission and the AFRC, some of the unique work carried out at the special facilities will be able to continue.

Ms. Dawn Primarolo: rose—

Mr. Wiggin: I shall not give way to the hon. Lady who last week made no attempt to offer me the most elementary courtesy before she raised in the House the matter of the institute, which is in my constituency. In view of the time, I shall continue.
The obvious merit in being able to carry out this special work is not only that it will continue, but will be conducted in a university atmosphere, which is right and proper. Furthermore, local employees may well be able to find work.
The Opposition's suggestion that there is to be a serious and total change in all food research is patently rubbish. While I accept that some work will cease, who are we as non-scientists and non-experts to decide on this allocation of funds? It is irritating to me that we appoint extremely expert people, indeed we have a fine chairman of the AFRC, but do not then leave them to decide how their funds should be allocated.
I strongly welcome the statement of my right hon. Friend the Minister about the irradiation of food. Much of the original checking of the safety of irradiation was done at Langford and I hope that the expertise will remain within the AFRC. One of our difficulties is that we are approached by scientists whose projects have been terminated and who, naturally, greatly resent that. They have been bound up in the work and believe it to be worthwhile. They resent a committee or outside body saying, "Sorry, it is no longer worth continuing with your research," or "You are not making sufficient progress." Therefore, we sometimes receive a distorted story.
Not however in one case, and I particularly want to mention one aspect of the work at Langford refrigeration.


The House will know that the Low Temperature Research Station was originally set up in Cambridge but moved to Langford, and the expertise contained within that department is very special. I hope that there are plans for continuing work on this facility. If there are, the staff concerned are not aware of them. I hope that the Minister will look with particular care at this aspect. The suggestion that there is nothing further to learn on the subject is patently absurd, and I understand that such work is not being carried out elsewhere.
During the Select Committee's recent inquiry into salmonella in eggs it became clear that, although much is known about food poisoning, the subject is ever changing. The ability of bacteria to change and mutate needs constant vigilance. The dividing line between the responsibility of doctors at the Department of Health, the public health laboratory service and the vets is narrow. It would not be right for me to detain the House by repeating that argument, but those interested may find it worthwhile to study the Committee's report on the subject.
Ensuring the health and cleanliness of our livestock is an expensive business. The poultry industry is counting the cost of recently introduced measures to combat salmonella in eggs. That cost will, unquestionably, be passed on to the consumer. Nevertheless, I believe that the public will be willing to pay. However, it is absurd that other countries in which standards are appreciably lower than ours—this means all other countries because we now lead the world in this matter—can export to this country eggs from flocks which do not meet our health standards. The Government must insist on ending such unfair practices which discriminate against the United Kingdom's egg producers.
Despite all the problems of the past few months, the British public have never enjoyed a wider, more attractive and safer range of foodstuffs than are currently on sale. Some 66 per cent. of all our food is now bought from six main supermarket chains. We have only to see the efforts which they make to confirm the purity of their food to realise that the public is well protected, not just by officials or the Government but by extremely competitive retailers who rely on the quality of their produce to beat the competition down the road.
We shall never totally eliminate food poisoning, any more than disease. Recent events have unquestionably had a salutary effect on all involved, but in the long term we shall have had a most beneficial look at the subject, which must be in the interests of all consumers.

Mr. Ronnie Fearn: Much of what I said in this House on 21 February during the debate on food safety and water is relevant today. Despite the Government's attempt to dispel fears and to look as though they are taking action by announcing, for example, the appointment of the Food Safety Committee and the ban on bovine offals for human consumption, the fact remains that the Government's prime motivations behind their policy are profit, economic gain and a reduction in public spending.
The order of the day is a menu that is quicker, cheaper and more efficient. Without the ingredients to ensure quality and safety, it is a recipe for disaster. As I said in the previous debate:
in our rush to progress and our haste to produce food more efficiently and profitably … certain people and industries have been allowed to cut corners. Consumers' rights have

been neglected and the dangers to their health have become much more prevalent."—[Official Report, 21 February 1989; Vol. 147, c, 883.]
Incidences of food poisoning have risen dramatically since that debate. My sources claim that they were investigating at least one and a half times as many cases this spring as last spring. In the second week of May there were 240 reported cases of salmonella poisoning, and everyone is aware that the vast majority of cases of gastric enteritis go unreported. With the prospect of a long hot summer in front of us, as most of us hope, more concerted and organised actions are required from the Government.
At the moment, Government food policy appears to be in a shambles. For example, Ministers cannot make up their minds whether they should ban green top milk. One minute they say that they will and the next that they will not. I welcome the most recent decision that consumers will retain their right of choice to buy untreated milk and I hope that the Government will extend that right to bovine somatotropin-treated milk by bottling separately milk which has been treated with the genetically engineered hormone, and clearly labelling it as such.
New technologies in agriculture, food production and processing make it important for the Government to be aware of the repercussions on consumers' health and the environment in general. That requires research, quality and hygiene standards, regulations and monitoring services. Instead, the Government have decided to cut public spending on food research by as much as 27 per cent. by 1993–94 and to reduce their commitment to experimental husbandry farming.
The closure of the Institute of Food Research at Langford, near Bristol, is part and parcel of the Government's reorganisation of agricultural research and development. The withdrawal of funds for near-market research projects in the belief that the private sector will pick up the tab is naive in the extreme and an example of what blind faith in the market will do. The Government also ignore the fact that many projects cannot: be separated, and their attempts to identify near-market research, and to reduce or withdraw their funding, are having a devastating effect.
The Government's action is symptomatic of their entire policy towards research and development. Scientists are leaving Britain on an unprecedented scale. Only last week, a microbiologist involved in food research at one of our universities said to me:
I do not see any way forward. Research is now seen as a source of income to the institute. If it is left to the private sector, the only research that is likely to be funded is that which follows the goals and objectives of the specific organisation providing the funds.
British industry is not well known for its investment in research and development, and many of the projects which are funded and founded involve pre-marketing research paid for by the sales and marketing departments. Needless to say, their guidelines are fairly stringent. This could be disastrous for the food safety aspect.
What guarantee is there that the findings will ever be published? I note that the large food chains such as Sainsbury's and Tesco's have refused to inform the consumer of the results of their massive testing programmes into chemical contamination of food. Sainsbury's justify this by saying that it considers the information to be confidential to itself and to its suppliers. Surely the consumer, who is the one most likely to be affected, has the right to know what this information is. I


do not see why, if the retailer is doing a good job and is satisfied that the food being sold is safe, it should not want the consumer to know the results of the tests. The consumer has a right to know what pesticides are used on foods. There is a clear case for labelling to give such information—a factor that the Minister hardly mentioned.
The Government's stated objective is to roll back the state. I do not think they have achieved that. All that they have done is to concentrate power at the centre. However, another topic for debate—something that the Government must not forget and must remember in their pursuit of their objectives, whatever they are—is their responsibility to those whom they govern. The Government are responsible for the protection of public safety, which is threatened not only by outside factors, but by all sorts of other hazards. Where there is a threat to public safety or health that any action by the individual cannot remove, it is the Government's responsibility to find the cause and the means to eliminate the danger. The production of a glossy food hygiene booklet aimed at the housewife, at a cost of £750,000, as a response to the recent outbreaks of food poisoning is a poor effort by the Government to carry out their duty, and in many cases is an insult to the consumer.
The consumer, by using proper cooking methods, can kill whatever bacteria are present in the food, but we have to address the question of how the organism got into the food in the first place, and how to prevent it doing so in the future. Prevention can be achieved only through research, detection and control throughout the food chain. The Government must no longer rely on self regulation by the industry. When demands are moving and changing as fast as they are today, with fads coming and going and competition rife, the industry must not and cannot be expected to regulate itself to an extent that ensures safety in food production, processing and retailing. The Government must introduce more regulations and the means to enforce them. Parliamentary time for whatever legislation is necessary to enable sufficient regulation, monitoring and control to take place must be set aside. Self regulation is not the ideal way to ensure safety in food products.
More rather than less research is required. It is no good the Government trotting out statistics and numbers to back up claims that spending in this sector is higher than it ever has been before, because I do not care whether it is or not. I care about whether the amount being spent is adequate to meet health and safety needs. The answer is quite obviously no.
The Government must give food safety top priority. The decision, announced by the Minister today, to allow irradiated food to be sold in Britain without full knowledge of the long-term effects and without other back-up measures to protect the consumer is an example of other considerations having priority. If irradiation is to remain, then the Government should consider such moves as a ban on fractionalised dosage and the proper funding for environmental officers to inspect premises regularly.
I am also concerned about Government action on bovine spongiform encephalopathy, or BSE. Can the Minister assure the House that the banning of cattle offal for human consumption and the move to have all cattle suspected of having BSE slaughtered and destroyed is

adequate protection against all aspects of the disease and its human health implications? Can the Government say with confidence that the risk to humans from the disease is remote? Although I am told that the fundamental science on this has not been carried out, can the Minister say that the Government have done all in their power to prevent any such risks? I cannot believe that the Government are so satisfied with the standards of health and animal hygiene that they see their way clear to reducing the complement of veterinary surgeons in the public service. Are the Government content that the standards of hygiene in all abattoirs is safe and something of which we should be proud?
Is the Secretary of State for Health satisfied that the level of environmental officers in post, and even the establishment number, is adequate to do all the follow-up work that is required as a result of the recent outbreaks of food poisoning? Where is the follow-up work that should be done if we wish to ensure that lessons are learnt and mistakes not merely repeated? Does the Secretary of State believe that there are enough officers with enough power to deal with the expansion in the numbers of small manufacturers, retailers and caterers and the many other types of premises that they have to inspect?
The Government must now think in terms of prevention, which is one of the most cost-effective of measures. Food poisoning, other diseases and illness could be avoided with the proper foresight, organisation, co-operation and resources. The cost to the nation as a whole in terms of the costs to the Health Service, to social security and to industry from days off work could easily be avoided.
In the debate last February, I called for the lines of responsibility within and between various Government Departments to be clarified. When various Departments are involved, it is too easy to claim non-responsibility, too tempting to fight one's own corner and too difficult to co-ordinate objectives. Therefore, today I issue a challenge to the Prime Minister. When she reshuffles her Cabinet in the near future, she should set up a Ministry of Food to establish a mechanism to make and carry out a coherent policy on food, and to give the safety and interests of the consumer the utmost priority.

Mr. Tim Boswell: I must immediately declare an interest as a council member of the Agricultural and Food Research Council. I attended last week's meeting at which the decision to close the Bristol laboratory was taken. In saying that, I put myself forward neither as a lightning conductor for, nor as a clone of, Government policy. No one need think that the decision was taken lightly, or without consideration of the staff situation, which was sensitively touched on by the constituency Member of Parliament, my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin).
The Opposition motion rests on two fundamental misconceptions. The first and major one is a rehash of the old philosophical confusion about the belief that, because one event follows another, the first must cause the second. For instance, if one believes that night follows day, one ends up believing that day causes night. It is very much the same with food safety. It needs only some accident to happen—accidents in food safety can be extremely unpleasant, as the recent outbreak of botulism has been


—and for there to be the coincidence of that accident with some development in agricultural research for the two to be inevitably put together by the Opposition. I am not quite sure of their view of the direct causation in this matter. For example, I am not sure whether last week was seen as a Government plot to infect their citizenry with botulism or as a plot by the bacillus to embarrass the Government on the eve of the European election. One way or the other, that is the way they see it.

Mr. Frank Cook: We infected them, did we?

Mr. Boswell: I did not say that.
Sometimes things go wrong with food safety. They have done in the past and they will do in the future. Our interest is in minimising their occurrence. Equally, decisions sometimes need to be taken in food policy and food research. It is inexusable to take those two coincidental happenings and to link them by a chain of causation which does not exist.
My second criticism of the Opposition motion is that for all their efforts, about which we read so much, to modernise and bring themselves up to date for the 1990s, they have not come to terms with the need for restructuring in the wider economy. We would not have made very much progress as a nation in the past 10 years, or even previously, if we had never had to make hard decisions to close a factory or to restructure a business. Anyone with an element of business experience appreciates the central importance of overhead costs. It is a matter of common sense that the number of sites on which an activity takes place, whether it be research or manufacturing, has a close bearing on the level of overhead costs—as, for example, my two district councils found when they consolidated their activities on one site. The larger the number of sites, the higher the overhead costs. That has been a major underlying theme in the decisions that the AFRC has taken to rationalise each of its institutes on one or two sites, and to modernise its operations.
I acknowledge the impact of the withdrawal of the MAFF contribution to near-market research. That could build up to a significant element in the total budget for the AFRC and the IFR during the next three years. However, I must stress that not all the work necessarily has to be done at the same location as the central science activities of the IFR. It need not all be carried out under the same organisation or funding umbrella. Much of it can go to other organisations, whether in the public or private sector. Insufficient attention has been paid to the tremendous increase in funding for AFRC institutes on contracts for the private sector. Much of the work might well be carried out elsewhere or under the funding of other bodies. An example of that is the important work on carcass quality—not that it need necessarily move from Langford—which could appropriately be funded by the industry.
On the public good aspect, I would cite the facilities for the welfare of animals at slaughter—a very sensitive issue —which are sited at Bristol. I understand that MAFF is prepared to continue with that as an item of public good, and so it should.
The result of making such difficult decisions will be a somewhat slimmed down IFR on two sites instead of the current three. The concentration will shift from the somewhat old-fashioned commodity-by-commodity approach, because modern developments have overtaken

that, not just in technology but in consumer taste. For example, a TV dinner is not just meat. A number of different items have to be put together and cooked appropriately. With chicken Kiev, different indgredients are mixed, widening the range of consumer choice and taste.
A multi-disciplinary approach is required, looking at the basic science and applying it to all situations. The new institute will concentrate on the disciplines of central science underlying that—safety; the early, rapid and effective diagnosis of bacteria, nutrition, consumer acceptability, the avoidance of taint, and bio-technology.
As an example of the way in which that can be done under the new arrangements, Dr. Roberts and the appropriate members of his microbiology team at Bristol will be transferred to Reading. All the relevant work on food safety can and will continue. It is interesting to note that there were 40 MAFF-funded food safety projects within the research system last year, which is a high number. I have every confidence in the leadership of Professor Georgala at the IFR and a chance for a new, modern activity under the new structure.
This debate concentrates upon the more general aspects of food safety. If nothing else, the events surrounding egg production earlier this year have highlighted the problem, which in general is still growing. However, it is interesting to note that as a result of Government action the salmonella problem has now stabilised. With respect to the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn), the Government will have to consider a balance of a number of important issues such as consumer safety, consumer confidence and product innovation to meet consumer taste and choice. There is also a need to get the regulatory structure right, as I am confident the Government will do in their forthcoming food legislation.
I call on Ministers to bear three points in mind when preparing this autumn's work. First, they should work actively with their colleagues in the Department of Education and Science to ensure that the necessary funds are available for the full restructuring of the IFR. Secondly, they should ensure that the resources are adequate for the monitoring and regulation of food safety both at national and at environmental health officer level. Thirdly, the campaign for food safety should be applied at all levels so that all the gateways through which bacteria can get in are closed. One that has not been mentioned today, and about which I feel strongly, is food and hygiene training in restaurants.
The bugs that cause food poisoning—which are over, around and within us—are more varied and ingenious than we could ever imagine. We need to close all the possible pathways into the human food chain. Simple slogans and simple assumptions of priority will not work. To take the necessary action, we need the best possible structure for the basic science. I believe that the Government have acted to secure that structure.

Mr. Eric Martlew: Earlier in the debate the Minister would not give way on the question of irradiation of food. It is a pity that he has left the Chamber because he could have put me right. We were given assurances that any irradiated food would be labelled, but what will happen in cafés and restaurants? Will there be labelling on


the menu or on the restaurant door? That will not happen. Irradiated food brought into this country will end up on the consumer's plate—

Mr. Frank Cook: In the Strangers Dining Room.

Mr. Martlew: I should be sorry if that happened as it is an excellent Dining Room.
The Government are deliberately misleading the public. If the Minister is prepared to say that irradiated restaurant food will be labelled, I will give way to him.

Mr. Frank Cook: The silence is deafening.

Mr. Martlew: The record will show that the Minister has refused to give that assurance.
The Government have shown a great deal of complacency today. During the past century consumers have never had a better chance of suffering from food poisoning. The choice is whether it should be from salmonella or campylobacter. The Government's food policy is unfit for human consumption.
I am glad that the problem of salmonella in eggs is improving. A letter from the British Poultry Federation today says that it has improved considerably since the Select Committee's report. The Select Committee can take credit for that, but the Government cannot take any credit because they have done nothing to stop the import of contaminated foreign eggs.
The Government's own chief officer of health said that the worst area in the European Community was Spain. Yet there is no ban on Spanish eggs coming into this country. Only last week, there was a positive test of salmonella in Dutch eggs. Why are the Government doing nothing about that? Those countries do not have our strict standards. They will now undercut us, the consumer will buy foreign eggs and our poultry industry, which has started to put its house in order, will suffer as a result of unfair competition.
Last year, there were 30,000 cases of food poisoning —or so the Government said. There is a question of reporting and whether the figure might be 10 per cent. or 100 per cent. higher. A further 30,000 reported cases of food poisoning did not go into the statistics—the cases of campylobacter which were recorded and blamed on food —so there were really 60,000 recorded cases of food poisoning last year. The problem is worse this year. June and July may be the strawberry season, but it is also the campylobacter season. There is an epidemic at present, which did not happen 10 years ago. Fortunately, it is rarely a fatal disease, but it is unpleasant, as anyone who has suffered from it will testify. What are the Government doing about food safety? The answer is that they are doing very little.
To take the fiasco of green-top milk, last January I asked in a written question whether the Minister intended to ban green-top milk. The answer was that there were no plans to do so. In February, the hon. Member for Newark (Mr. Alexander) asked the same question and the reply was reported in the west Yorkshire evening press. I am sorry that the junior Agriculture Minister is not here.

Mr. John Home Robertson: The big one.

Mr. Martlew: Yes, the big one. I refer to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the hon. Member for Calder Valley (Mr. Thompson). The local paper said:
MP backs green top milk ban. Plans to ban the sale of green top milk, which will affect the livelihoods of up to 40 Calderdale farmers, have the backing of junior minister Mr. Donald Thompson.
He said the ban was necessary in the interest of public safety. Green top milk"—
[Interruption.] This is a serious matter. We should not joke about the next part!
Green top milk was blamed for the deaths of five elderly people and a baby in Calderdale in 1984".
In fact the figure was seven adults and one baby. That was the year after the Government banned the sale of green-top milk in Scotland. Had they taken action in England at the same time, those people would have lived. The article was written in February. The Minister continued—

Miss Emma Nicholson: If the hon. Gentleman follows his train of thought logically, would he want to stop people driving and to close all roads on the ground that 300 people die every week on the roads? The public want the choice to drink green-top milk. With proper consumer labelling, they now have that choice in England and Wales, and I am delighted that that is so.

Mr. Martlew: I am sorry that the hon. Lady delights in continuing to advocate a product which has killed people in the past and will kill people in the future. The Government decided that the pressure groups to which the hon. Lady answers—

Miss Nicholson: I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw that remark.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has given way.

Mr. Martlew: Those pressure groups have deceived—

Miss Nicholson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it possible for the hon. Gentleman to withdraw that statement? I am answerable to nobody. I assume that the hon. Gentleman means financially answerable, as other Labour Members have made that statement. He is incorrect to say that.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order, but the hon. Lady has got her point on the record.

Mr. Martlew: Pressure groups in this country have persuaded the Government to continue to allow the sale of a lethal mixture. I was asked last week whether I would drink green-top milk and I answered that I would not even give it to my cat. It has created terrible problems. The Government are not fit to run a food policy if they do not have the courage to ban green-top milk. The old advertisement said that milk had a lot of bottle. That is certainly more than the Government have.
The Government said that they had no evidence of the irradiation of products. I spoke to local health inspectors who had had a complaint about some prawns which did not smell right. The prawns were sent to the public laboratory in Glasgow, which found there were no bacteria in them, so the only conclusion was that the prawns had been irradiated. The Government have been allowing irradiated food in Britain for years and have


given only one warning. They are not in a position to put forward creative policies to protect people from food poisoning. They have failed to do so and, as a result, 2 million people will suffer this year. I have no confidence that the legislation that they intend to propose in the autumn will do anything but continue to protect vested interests.

Mr. Robert Key: It falls to me to bring the debate down to earth. We seem to have been groping in Utopia for the past hour or so. I regret the sharp exchange that I had with the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) at the beginning of the debate. It was probably rather uncharacteristic and the hon. Gentleman is far too nice a man for me to treat his remarks with disdain. However, it is important to get the matter into proportion. I ask the hon. Gentleman what is the virtue in not just the duplication but the triplication of scientific procedures which would have resulted if the influence of the Langford institute had remained. I do not wish to dwell on the matter, so I will go on to the important issues facing the consumer. Consumers have not been mentioned much so far. I declare an interest in that I represent many food producers and many food consumers. I also represent the scientific researchers at the Centre for Applied Microbiology and Research at Porton Down.
Shopping is not just a chore. Perhaps the hon. Member for South Shields will accept the challenge to accompany me to seek out the freshest ingredients, the best value for money and the best food for health. If he came to my home in the Wiltshire countryside, which I would be delighted to put at his disposal, he would find that my chest freezer was empty, that the cupboards tended increasingly to be full of beans and that my garden was full of vegetables and rather too many weeds.
I suggest that we need to address ourselves more to the question of whether we, as consumers, are going down the right path. Is it virtuous to be told that more than 60 per cent. of all food is bought in supermarkets in some sort of processed form? Should we not seek instead to extol the virtues of food in season and the value of natural foods, and should we not look rather more seriously at organic farming?
I listened with interest to the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie) and I am sorry that he has had to slip out temporarily. I was interested in and impressed by his comments. 1 should like to expand on one point that has been missed so far—the role of education of the consumer. It is a matter of health education, which is crucial, and also of good, old-fashioned domestic science, or home economics. I hope that it is taught to boys as well as girls, as all the best chefs in the world are men.
Another point raised was the future of the Centre for Applied Microbiology and Research. We cannot consider the issue before us today without looking at the institutions concerned. The decision to preserve the former microbiological research establishment at the Ministry of Defence was taken by Parliament in 1979 with the full agreement of all parties in the House. The Labour Government took that decision and the Conservative Opposition agreed with it. The management of the renamed Centre for Applied Microbiology and Research

—CAMR—was entrusted to the public health laboratory service and became funded on the health Vote. That point is crucial.
In 1985 CAMR's remit was to generate income. Agreements were signed between CAMR and Porton International and the public health laboratory service board covering the marketing of CAMR products and the building of a much-needed new fermentation pilot plant. The question of building a production centre was also raised, but I regret to say that that was something of a fiasco with severe design failures. That fiasco had nothing to do with either PHLS or CAMR. It was sub-contracted work. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Freeman), can tell us what is happening about that as there is clearly a role for an expanded CAMR and, indeed, future employment in my constituency could be affected.
There have been many ministerial visits to CAMR in recent years, for which I am grateful. My noble Friend Lord Trefgarne came in 1982 and directed that CAMR should maximise its income generation and aim for economic self-sufficiency, which was the first new trend in research in that area. The second visit was made by my noble Friend Baroness Trumpington in 1987. She gave the centre a new remit. It was to have four corners to its work. The first related to public health laboratory service work, such as AIDS research; the second was work for the then Department of Health and Social Security, such as the development of new vaccines; the third, which has not yet been mentioned, was research for the Department of Trade and Industry into multi-company work; the fourth related to income generation, including money from marketing its scientific expertise.
The present position was outlined both last week and this week in articles in the Financial Times. There is much interest and speculation at the moment. It is widely believed that one option is the complete privatisation of CAMR. That would create considerable difficulties in the present contractural arrangements with Porton International in CAMR's other functions and commercial relationships, such as that with Wellcome, and in its remaining public health responsibilities.
There is also the unwelcome possibility that privatisation could close down the centre's work on AIDS and on food poisoning and lead to the destruction of its unique, important and successful European collection of animal cell cultures, as such things would not be attractive to private sector investment companies.
If we are looking for income generation, and since we are increasingly concerned about the destruction of tropical rain forests, not only because of their climatic importance but also because of the loss of genetic diversity, CAMR could be encouraged to set up a new forest cell culture centre which could be internationally self-financing. There could be a number of roles for CAMR in the future, but a key principle must be its ability to retain and develop its multiple relationships with United Kingdom companies, while in no way seeking to derogate from its contractual relationship with Porton International.
The organisation also has a strategic role which can never be divorced from the role of Government, especially in areas such as AIDS research and food poisoning research. One solution could be for the institution to be allowed to become a free-standing agency as part of the Government's review into all their research institutions.


As that is feasible, it is possible that CAMR could become financially self-supporting within about five years, so great is its income-generating potential.
Today was supposed to have seen a lobby of Parliament by scientists working in the National Health Service, but it was cancelled because some of their union colleagues decided to have a railway strike instead and the lobby has been rearranged for next month.
When talking about food research, we must remember that we are talking not about a few highly qualified specialist expert scientists but about whole teams including everyone from the scientist to the man in the boiler house. I should take this opportunity to point out that there are two completely separate organisations at Porton Down —the chemical defence establishment and the public health laboratory service, CAMR. There are 700 employees at Porton Down, the vast majority of whom provide support services to scientists. This country faces a demographic problem in relation to man and woman power in the coming years. There is a severe problem with the recruitment and retention of staff, especially at that scientific and technical level in the National Health Service.
Several scientists at Porton Down—and, indeed, representatives of other interests there—have drawn my attention to problems to which I draw the attention of Ministers. The first is the problem of retention and recruitment of younger scientific staff. It is caused by a combination of what I acknowledge is relatively low pay in those institutions and by the high price of housing. I can only conclude that the Whitley Council system of national pay bargaining is serving my constituents badly when the national averages are taken into account in determining pay. It would be very much in the interests of my constituents if an agency for local pay bargaining were established.
The second great difficulty—I suspect that it is faced by many similar institutions throughout the country—is that the people who are employed directly by the National Health Service at CAMR often carry out identical jobs or jobs with nearly identical specifications and requiring identical qualifications, but receive lower pay rates than those employed at Porton International, for example. That means that some people working in the same institution, doing almost the same jobs, receive lower rates of pay. On the other side of the road, scientists who do the same or similar jobs for the Ministry of Defence are on different rates of pay because they are not NHS staff but are civil servants. Furthermore, even within that establishment there are differential pay rates between Army personnel and civil servants. All those differences exist on the one site and present an increasing problem.
Porton Down CAMR is dealing with the important fight against infectious diseases. Salmonella has already been mentioned, but there are also legionella, botulism, bovine spongiform encephalopathy and AIDS.
I should like my hon. Friends to spare a thought for the small poultry producers in my constituency who produce eggs from flocks of just over 25 birds. At the moment—rather ludicrously—Ministry vets are rushing around the country sticking swabs up chickens' backsides to see whether there is any salmonella infection. However, severe doubt has been cast on that test because it is possible for

poultry to lay eggs that are infected but for the infection not to show up on a test of the bird, and it is also possible for the reverse to happen and for an egg to be uninfected when the bird is not free from infection. That discrepancy has never been denied by the Government. They have always been completely honest and have said that internationally no test is foolproof. They are right. However, is it worth all the hassle if our small poultry producers have to face the possibility that if infection is discovered their flock will be destroyed and they will be compensated at only one third or one half the market replacement value of their flocks?
In conclusion, it would be to the advantage of the work force at CAMR, which is crucial to food safety in this country because it was there that scientists discovered the source of the hazelnut yoghurt infection within just three hours, if consideration were given to its future within the whole equation of food safety in this country.

Mr. Frank Cook: The Minister took 41 minutes to respond to the robust and probing opening speech of my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark). He devoted 25 minutes to a ministerial statement that should have been made in Government time. I shall not be churlish about that because I was pleased to hear it at long last. We have waited long enough for it. He made one or two challenges that I will answer quickly because many of my colleagues want to speak, despite some of the delaying tactics on the Government Benches.
The Minister referred to early-day motion 950 in my name. I want to alert the House to the fact that after I tabled the motion I did an interview with Central Television. That interview was cut, as interviews are. Part of a leading statement by Central Television last week was that I had said that irradiation could cause illness—I will not quibble with that—and even kill. I have never said that about food irradiation and I never would, because it could not be substantiated. What I said was that there is a huge question mark over the technique and its application.
I hope to outline briefly the nature of that question mark. It is not only I who say that, but the Consumers in the European Community Group which, as the House should know, is made up of 29 voluntary and professional organisations in the United Kingdom, with an interest in the impact of European Community legislation on the British consumer. Irradiation is also opposed by the Retail Consortium, by the Institution of Environmental Health Officers and by the Institute of Trading Standards Administration. So it is not a light-weight reservation that we seek to put on the record.
I want to tackle some of the challenges made by the Minister when he referred to the early-day motion. I am surprised that the Minister should make such efforts to challenge my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields about the nature of an early-day motion that refers to a practice that the Minister seeks to legalise. It is topsy turvy that he should expend so much energy on it.
The Minister asked for evidence. The evidence will be made available. I have always found the Minister to be most candid and I have paid tribute to him on more than one occasion. I have found the Under-Secretary of State for Health, who is to reply to the debate, to be the same, so I expect similar treatment from him.
The investigations that lay behind the early-day motion were set up by people working for a national newspaper. They established a dummy company to import consignments of food that had previously been irradiated —in other words, in contravention of existing legislation. I note that the Minister did not challenge early-day motions 713, 714 and 715 which were tabled in 1986 when we supplied documentary evidence that proved conclusively what was happening, but no action was taken. Further copies of that evidence are available. That explains our lack of confidence in Government action this time.
As I said, a national newspaper set up a dummy company. Contacts were made with Gammaster BV and Hank de Bruijne. Gammaster BV provided the information that Allways Transport could get the consignments into this country and distribute them wherever they were needed, without fail. Not only did the company do that, but it undertook to give a guarantee of bona fides to Allways Transport. In other words, it was prepared to say that the dealer was a good Indian who was not likely to sprag the game or squeal on the practice.
Hank de Bruijne went further. The daughter of the proprietor said that not only would there be no problem with the consignment but that if the intended trader was worried about discovery by port health authorities because the load was too clean bacterially the company had the answer. Instead of giving the consignment the full dose of irradiation, it would apply only a partial dose, irradiating to only 2 kilogray, thereby killing only some bacteria and leaving some creeping and crawling so that the port authorities would be put off the scent, if scent there was to be—an unfortunate phrase in the context.
I doubt whether people will derive any confidence from the controls that the Minister proposed. If we are to be confronted with traders who are likely to adopt practices and subterfuges such as I have outlined, what confidence can we ask the British consumer to have in the measures that the Government propose? In any case, what good will the Government measures do? Everyone agrees that irradiation will kill some bacteria, but I was pleased to hear the Ministr say that it is not a panacea. He said that three times. I hope that he keeps on saying it. It is far from being a panacea. It cannot he used in isolation. The Minister also said that irradiation would not make bad food good. That is right. But it stops bad food from looking and smelling bad. That is the main point that we should emphasise.
I am trying to rush through many points and it is proving difficult. The bacteria that is removed by irradiation will not affect clostridium botulinum because it is not susceptible to irradiation. It is a spore-borne organism which thrives better out of oxygen. That is why the American authorities will not allow irradiation of vacuum-packed meat; that would be the perfect environment for clostridium botulinum. The Minister earlier, and the Secretary of State in his statement on botulism last week, claimed that we have a better resistance to botulism and that the incidence of botulism in other countries is higher.
The Government are trying to claim credit, but I put this riddle to them. If consignments of food are irradiated, the yeasts and moulds that are in competition with clostridium botulinum are killed and clostridium botulinum is allowed free rein to develop even more virulently. There will be more vigorous toxins which may increase the incidence of botulism. The Government

cannot have it both ways. They cannot claim better health because of the low incidence of botulism and at the same time seek to introduce a technique which, if used freely, could give botulism free rein.
Consumers want healthy, wholesome food that is produced, prepared, stored, distributed and retailed in healthy and hygienic conditions; there is no substitute for that.

Mr. Andy Stewart: That is what they get.

Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman says that that is what they get. The evidence indicates that that is not what they have been getting. My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) has already made an effective point about catering establishments.
My point is that the consumer has a right—not a choice —to expect healthy and wholesome food. Choice is determined by the amount of money in the pocket and the wherewithal. It is all well and good for Government Ministers to tell us that we can go out and buy the food that we want, but they cannot say that to a person living on social security who has a limited income. It is strange that we should be prepared to invoke penalty on social security miscreants when we are not prepared to invoke penalty on people who have transgressed against the rules of food irradiation.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Pesticide advertisements.

Mr. Cook: I am pleased that the hon. Lady has returned to the Chamber in a state of consciousness.
Choice is not an answer to hygienic standards.
I made some points in a letter to the solicitors who are seeking to have a go at me on the basis of the early-day motion, and perhaps this is the right note on which to finish. I said in that letter:
I note too your unequivocal assertion that your 'clients have never imported or sold any product which has been subjected to the irradiation process'.
Given that there is no reliable method devised as yet to determine whether or not food has been irradiated prior to examination might I counsel the use of the word 'knowingly' after 'never' in any further statements.
One must assume from the content and tone of your letter that
—until contacted by the reporter—
your clients were completely ignorant of the practices identified in my EDM. Is this so?
Had you known of them what would have been your reaction?
You will have noted from my interview with Central Television that I act not only for the benefit of the consumer but also at the behest of parties interested in the British food industry who are anxious to ensure that those trading in that sector employ routinely the same proper and effective standards of hygiene as they do themselves in the production, preparation, distribution and retail of healthy and wholesome food for the consumer both in the UK and abroad.
I'm sure that if you … feel as concerned for these ends as you are for the standing of … in the eyes of the consumer, … you will join with me in pursuing energetically measures to eradicate totally such abuse at the earliest date.
If we expect the consumer to choose between irradiated and non-irradiated food, we must at the same time give them a good reason for irradiating it—not the end result but the need for irradiating food in the first place—because at the moment for me there is none.

Mr. Christopher Gill: I support the Government's amendment. My right hon. Friend the Minister has outlined the very positive, professional and responsible aspects of this Government's policy in relation to food safety, which is in sharp contrast to the sparseness of the Opposition policy, as expounded by the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark). The hon. Gentleman spoke about oysters, and I for one found very few pearls in the oysters to which he referred. Regardless of the language and the country of origin, I must tell the hon. Gentleman that there is no known method of salvaging rotten food, nor of making that food good. It is mischievous and irresponsible of him to suggest otherwise.
Having worked in the food industry for about 30 years, perhaps I should declare an interest. That interest is the same interest that everyone working in the food industry would declare, which is in seeing safe food products of a consistent quality provided for the consuming public. If we do not provide safe consistent products, we will go out of business.
My right hon. Friend referred to the rapid changes in consumer habits. Over the 30 years in which I have been involved in the industry, we have seen food—far from being the major purchase that it once was—relegated to a fairly insignificant part of the family budget. Meals and meal times are also less structured than they were years ago. Above all, 30 years ago ingredients were almost exclusively fresh. Food was prepared in a domestic kitchen, cooked immediately prior to consumption, and eaten at regular times; but that is no longer the case.
First, the food that we eat is no longer fresh; it might be frozen, dehydrated or cooked and chilled. Secondly, less and less food is prepared in a domestic kitchen. More and more of the demand is for convenience food of which there is little or no preparation at home. There has been a dramatic increase in eating out, where the restaurateur or caterer does the preparation and the cooking. All that is quite predictable, having regard to the greater number of housewives and mothers who go out to work, and, indeed, the greater prosperity that people enjoy as a result of 10 years of Conservative government. At this stage I pay tribute to the great British food industry, which has risen to the challenge of satisfying the modern demand for a greater diversity of interesting, wholesome, nutritious, affordable and convenient food.
Thirdly, meals are no longer necessarily cooked immediately prior to consumption. The advent of the microwave and the concept of cook-chill meals means that the cooking process is often remote from the domestic situation. It is remote both in time and place, in the sense that the cooking process has probably taken place in a factory many days or even weeks in advance of consumption.
Fourthly, the notion that meals are taken at regular times is a thing of the past; so too, regrettably, is the notion that meal times are a significant family occasion. We have become a nation of browsers. We eat irregularly in a completely unstructured manner and we eat whatever appeals to us at the time.
As a consequence of those habits—this is the point I wish to underline—we as a nation have a reduced knowledge of buying, preparing, cooking and presenting food. As a nation, we have less understanding of the properties of food, the nutritional values and, specifically,

as far as it relates to fresh food, the keeping qualities of food. We have a less than satisfactory understanding of the importance of good hygiene. Indeed, the confidence of consumers in their own ability is so depreciated that in a recent National Consumer Council poll more than half of those interviewed thought that the Government, health education authorities and manufacturers should be
doing the most to provide clear advice and information to consumers on Food Safety.
Never once, for example, was it mentioned that mothers would be the most important influence in guiding families in how they should produce food for their offspring.
The question is what, if anything, those three groups of people, who have been identified in the National Consumer Council poll, should be doing to redress that situation and, especially, what could and what should the Government be doing. There is always a danger—certainly the Opposition would lead us down this dangerous path —of trying to do too much. There is a danger, as a result of trying to do too much, that we will dilute the responsibility of the consumer. There is a danger, too, of being too prescriptive in our legislation. That holds the hazard of stultifying one of the United Kingdom's most successful and innovative industries and, directly following from that, restricting consumer choice and variety.
What should we do? My right hon. Friend the Minister reminded us of the need at all times for constant vigilance —and there is no gainsaying that at all. We must take swift and effective action wherever problems manifest themselves. I fully endorse the Government's policy that we must act only on the basis of the best scientific information available at the time. We must uphold the law which at the moment states that all food should be safe and that all consumers should not be misled. I for one would be happy at the prospect of the Government and the enforcing authorities throwing the book at those who offend those laws. We should continue to publish and disseminate straightforward, simple-to-read common-sense advice to consumers, and I commend to the House the recent booklet on food safety which satisfies all those criteria in good measure.
The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie), who is no longer in his place, spoke about diet, but we should beware the false prophets. A diet industry is becoming prominent which says that some food is good and other food bad. But there is no such thing as bad food, only a bad diet. A good diet is a balanced and varied one. In the words of the old maxim, one might say moderation in all things.
I know that moderation does not always appeal to Opposition Members, but let me leave them with this thought. If, in their estimation, so many things are wrong in Britain today, why do we have a higher proportion of old people than any other country bar one? As they know, as I know and as the Minister knows, it is the old and the young who are most at risk from food poisoning. There cannot be anything terribly wrong with the British diet when so many live to such a ripe old age.

Mrs. Ann Clwyd: The Secretary of State said that the Government act quickly to ensure that people eat safe food, but I hope to explode that myth. I have plenty of evidence to show that the Government do not act quickly and that their approach to the problem of food


safety is cavalier and irresponsible, particularly on the safety of airline passengers, and, in the next few months, there will be hundreds of those as the holiday traffic increases. It is utterly disgraceful that the Government have not addressed that problem.
In February 1989, the three local authorities responsible for environmental health standards at Heathrow completed a report on airline food safety. They discovered that excessive levels of potentially dangerous bacteria have been found in nearly a quarter of all the meals tested at Heathrow airport—a quarter of the meals on the ground, before they even reach the aircraft.
Only last weekend it was reported that
air travellers are being exposed to the risk of a 'disastrous outbreak of food poisoning' because of long flight delays and poor hygiene.
The Institution of Environmental Health Officers was reported as saying that
lack of hygiene training among cabin crew, combined with the rapid increase of bacteria during flight delays, poses a serious threat to passengers' health. It demands new powers to monitor the safety of food on aircraft, which escape controls because the food is given away.
The Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Freeman), was reported as saying that
he would review regulations in the light of the report.
He said:
I am looking forward to being briefed further on this to see what can or should be done.
I want to illustrate how, despite having a report from the environmental health officers responsible for environmental health at Heathrow, the Government have ignored those reports and have refused to take any action.
More than 1,000 separate foods were examined by environmental health officers at Heathrow who found some of the worst contamination in paté, appetisers, main courses of beef and rice puddings. The tests were conducted by the airport's local boroughs on freshly made meals which had not even reached the aircraft. By the time that the meals reached passengers, bacteria levels would often be much higher because of poor temperature control.
Most of the foods were prepared by the cook-chill method, which has been implicated in many of the recent cases of food poisoning, but those particular foods were not tested for listeria, which was not looked on as a problem when the tests were carried out. The three London boroughs are beginning a second survey to try to determine whether listeria is present.
Of the foods tested, 24 per cent. harboured 1 million bacteria per gramme—100 times more than the maximum recommended by the Department of Health. E. Coli, the bacteria associated with faecal contamination, was found in 209 separate dishes and salmonella was found in four dishes tested by the environmental health officers.
In case hon. Members think that those are isolated cases, the reported outbreaks of food-borne infections over several years have involved large numbers of people. On one flight from Tokyo to Paris 197 people were affected. On 11 charter flights from Las Palmas, 550 people were affected. In one year on several flights from London 766 people were affected, and on another flight 304 people were affected. This is not a small problem. It is a large problem at the moment and a potentially large problem in the future.

Mr. Elliot Morley: I listened carefully to the figures that my hon. Friend gave

of the number of people affected. An outbreak of salmonella in my constituency resulted last week in the tragic death of Benjamin Walker, aged two. One of his friends, also aged two, is currently in hospital, and a third child of the same age from an adjoining village has recently been hospitalised. That is the human face of the tragedy behind those figures.
I have heard much talk of responsibility during the debate, but does my hon. Friend agree that it is not responsible for the Government to cut research programmes into salmonella, including the one led by Dr. Meade in Bristol dealing with eradication programmes? That cut was heavily criticised by the Select Committee's report into salmonella, the members of which were unanimous that the Government should undertake more research into salmonella. The Government cannot be held responsible for that child's death, but a Government who do not face up to their responsibilities to undertake such research will have the deaths of other children and people on their hands.

Mrs. Clwyd: I agree with my hon. Friend. It is irresponsible to cut research when, over the past few months, it has been clearly shown that the number of food poisoning cases in Britain is growing rather than decreasing. I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention.
Let me return to the Secretary of State's claim that the Government act quickly. In March, the three environmental health officers responsible for Heathrow sent the Secretary of State for Health a copy of their report. In April, I asked him whether he would make a statement and he said:
I have just received a copy of the report and I will give it due consideration."—[Official Report, 6 April 1989; Vol. 150. c. 290.]
In May, I asked the same question and the Under-Secretary of State said:
We have recently received a copy of the survey … It is still receiving careful consideration within the Department." —[Official Report, 2 May 1989; Vol. 152, c. 100.]
In June I asked the same question, and the Under-Secretary of State said:
I shall let the hon. Member have a reply as soon as possible.
One would think that the Government were studying a massive report, but in fact it is slim and its recommendations are clear. I should not have thought that this urgent problem needed four months' consideration before the Government could make a statement on what they intended to do about it.
Not only that, but as long ago as 1986, at the second world congress of food-borne infections in Berlin, the Government's central public health laboratory service said that the provision of meals on aircraft, particularly on those travelling long distances, posed many food hygiene problems, and that outbreaks of food-borne infections had been reported associated with in-flight meals and had involved a wide range of organisms, including salmonella. It reported the results of that survey at some length. As long ago as that, the Government's own agency had the necessary information, yet the Government refused to take any action.
Heathrow environmental health officers are concerned about the present situation and its potential. The hundreds of thousands of people using Heathrow and other airports throughout Britain are entitled to Government protection. The health officers produced clear reports and suggestions.


They argue that the aviation catering industry ought to adopt a common standard for meal production, which should be the guidelines on pre-cooked and chilled foods published by the Department of Health in 1980. The Department has since issued new guidelines, but how will it compel caterers to observe them? That should not be the responsibility of EHOs, who are already hard pressed.
Heathrow health officers also published a long list of deviations from the required standards. Guideline 2e, for example, states:
Reheating of the food to be done immediately upon removal from chilled conditions and raised to at least 70°C.
The report comments:
This raises the question as to whether the food is still in a chilled condition on the aircraft as this depends upon the time of leaving the catering unit, ambient temperature, the length of the flight, any delays … There appear to be no international checks on these matters.
Guideline 2g states:
+ 10°C is regarded as the critical safety limit for chilled foods.
According to health officers,
Temperature variances with or without botulism during production, storage and delivery are tremendous.
Recommendation 4 is:
All raw materials to be of good quality.
The Minister himself stressed the importance of quality control. The deviation noted by health inspectors was:
Most caterers check out their suppliers, but the degree to which this is done varies enormously. On occasions this is not done at all.
Can the Minister say how the Government will make their new guidelines stick better than the old?
Environmental health officers would like a reply to their report, which the Government have taken so long to consider. The hundreds of thousands of airline passengers who believe that the food they eat is safe should either be advised that fears to the contrary are groundless or that they should take sandwiches for the time being. When the Minister winds up, I hope that he will address himself to the problem of ensuring airline food safety.

Mr. Robin Cook: I am glad to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) in her concern about the health hazards posed by airline meals. I have some interest in that subject, as on average I eat two airline meals per week while travelling to and from my constituency. The report to which my hon. Friend drew attention is particularly interesting and provides striking evidence that even in a catering establishment which might be regarded as up-market there is no guarantee that it is free of the health hazards that frequently exist in the food that we buy and eat.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie) made a thoughtful and considered speech, as one would expect of one with his background as a community physician. My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) made a forceful case for exploring the Government's contradictory attitudes to green-top milk. As to his observation concerning the Government's reversal on that issue, I was struck by the report that the Government backed down on green-top milk after receiving 1,200 objections. We understand from a written answer that the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food received 6,000 objections to food irradiation.

Unfortunately, it seems that that number of objections —five times the number received in respect of green-top milk—is somehow not so conclusive.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) fluently put a well-informed case for not regarding food irradiation as a total solution and pointed to the paradox that at this moment irradiation is being offered as a solution when the particular incidence of food poisoning that we currently have in mind was caused by botulism, to which irradiation is almost irrelevant. In so far as it is relevant, it is in the sense that irradiation may contribute to an environment in which the botulinum bacterium will thrive.
The first comment that I have to make is, very sadly, that I understand that during the course of the debate one of the 26 victims of the botulism outbreak in the north-west has died. It is perhaps regrettable that the Secretary of State referred to that outbreak as being one of only nine this century. That may be so, but as many people were affected by the latest outbreak as by all the previous eight outbreaks put together. That is the gravity of the latest occurrence. We must now try to grapple with the serious problem of combating food health hazards.
Throughout the debate there has been a division between Government and Opposition Members. While my right hon. and hon. Friends and I are undoubtedly exercised by the threat, having listened to most of the speeches made by Conservative Members I am not persuaded that they are seized with the gravity of the crisis.
The first step to finding a solution is to admit that a problem exists. The Government's own figures should alarm them. Formal notifications of food poisoning rose from 10,000 in 1978 to more than 20,000 in 1987. Even more alarming than that doubling of cases in a decade is that since 1987 notifications have doubled again. In the first five months of 1989 there were 16,700 recorded cases, giving an annualised rate of more than 40,000.
Fortunately, we have a way of expressing the cost to society of food poisoning in terms that Conservative Members should find easy to grasp. Bradford university's food policy unit conducted a study which concluded that productivity losses from food poisoning cost employers £350 million and that twice as many working days are lost by it as through strikes. The Government's most visible response to date is a consumer leaflet of which we were informed in February. After being briefed by the Government, the press faithfully reported that the Government want housewives to "cook just like mother". The problem is that the Government are still trying to control the food industry with the same regulations that were around at the time when mother went shopping.
Food hygiene regulations for shops effectively date from 1938, although they have been much consolidated. It is breathtaking that while a revolution in food retailing has taken place, with the conversion to open display and self-service, there are no regulations covering the temperature at which such food is stored. We know that the Department of Health is uneasy about that because it produced a consultative document on food hygiene, the background note to which comments:
In recent years there has been increasing criticism of the absence of regulations on the temperature control of food in retail shops.
The background notes containing that sentence and the consultative document itself were published on 22 June 1987—two years ago tomorrow—but nothing has been


heard since. No regulations have been laid before the House in those two years, during which there have been 73,000 recorded cases of food poisoning.
Last February, weary of waiting for the Government to produce regulations, we drafted our own regulations on food hygiene. The response of the Secretary of State at the time was that he was "on the point" of introducing regulations. That was on 15 February. Four months later, the Secretary of State is still ambling around the point, although I was advised in a parliamentary answer received this afternoon that I shall now have to wait at least another four months until the autumn for any draft regulations from the Government.
Instead, the Government have issued a leaflet to shoppers providing advice on what they should do with products after buying them. It seemed reasonable, therefore, to test how shops themselves followed the advice offered to the consumer. One of the key pieces of advice in the leaflet is
Make sure the fridge is cold enough—and stays below 5 deg C.… buy a fridge thermometer to check.
Yesterday I carried out a survey of shops in north London. They were not major supermarkets, but they were not corner shops either—some were parts of local and regional chains or mini-markets. The results of the temperature tests were appalling. Of the seven shops that we inspected, only one was displaying food at less than 10 deg C. One offered tuna pate at 19 deg and was selling chicken pieces at the same temperature. In another the meat pie freezer was running at a temperature of 17·5 deg. In a third, sausages were on sale at 24 deg and ham at 15 deg.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley observed, the most remarkable feature of such tales is that none of the premises is committing an offence or breaking existing regulations, although, in microbiological terms, the temperatures at which the food is offered for sale are hair-raising. There is no point in spending £750,000 on beautifully drawn leaflets advising consumers to store food at temperatures below 5 deg C. if the food bought from the shop is not safe to be put in the fridge, let alone eaten.
There are obvious ways in which the Government could regulate the food industry to provide the consumer with more confidence and safety. Instead, this afternoon we have heard them reach once again for the technical fix—in this case, irradiation. It is extraordinary that the Secretary of State should announce that he is introducing that measure to respond to consumer demand for choice when every opinion poll confirms that consumers do not want their food irradiated. The most recent poll carried out by Marplan found 83 per cent. against it.
Moreover, the irradiation proposal is wildly irrelevant to the problem. Irradiation cannot be applied to fatty foods, because it turns them rancid. It cannot be applied to eggs, although they have been the single most obvious source of concern to the public. Nor can it be applied to yoghurt—if it is, the result is a taste defined by the experts as that of burnt wool. If it is applied to meat of the kind that I found being stored at such high temperatures, the taste is described by the experts as "wet dog smell". It is true that it can be applied to hazelnut purée, but that will not stop botulism—it may destroy the bacteria, but it will not destroy the toxin which causes food poisoning.
The most profound reason to oppose irradiation, however, is that it does not deal with the root causes of the increased incidence of food poisoning. It does not offer a

remedy for the results of intensified farming methods and the growing practice—which I, as a layman, find rather bizarre—of recycling one animal's waste as another animal's feedstock. Nor does it address the pressure from the food industry for a longer shelf life, although it is clearly intended as a response to that pressure. It does not address the problem of the varying standards of hygiene in food outlets which have resulted from the explosion in the number of vast fast food chains. It merely provides a technical fix which enables the Government to pretend that it is possible to go on living with all those trends when it is clearly not possible. Food poisoning will continue to increase until we bring in regulations which compel shops to apply the same standards that Ministers are urging on housewives.
We know why the Government dare not do that. It is no accident that they keep putting it off. It is not because the regulations have slipped their mind, or have been put in a file marked "mañana". It is because the present Prime Minister's ideology is flatly opposed to tighter regulations. In her influential intervention in last week's European elections, she denounced what she described as more regulations, more bureaucracy and more state intervention. One of the Ministers present today will have to pluck up courage to explain to the Prime Minister that the consumer is to be protected adequately from being poisoned by the food on sale in the shops, more regulations will be required, along with more state intervention and—yes—perhaps even a touch more bureaucracy to ensure that the regulations are enforced. I know that it is demanding a good deal of Ministers to ask them to find the courage to storm Downing street with that message, but I offer them a spur, sharpened by the glorious results of last Thursday: if the present Government persist in their refusal to protect consumers, those consumers will increasingly look for a Government who will protect them.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Roger Freeman): I shall answer as many questions as I can. If I cannot deal with all of them today, I shall write to hon. Members.
The Government's policy on food hygiene is to put the consumer first. Hon. Members on both sides of the House agree that the consumer's interests must be our main priority. The hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) began by referring to botulism, and I shall deal with that first. We have received no reports of any new cases this week; a total of 26 have been reported. I understand that six patients are still on ventilators, and that five are stable and improving. I join the hon. Gentleman in expressing my regret to the family of the 78-year-old lady who, sadly, died of complications this afternoon, and I am sure that the whole House will wish to join in my hope that the remaining patients will make a complete recovery.
My Department is continuing to co-ordinate exhaustive investigations into the outbreak of botulism, in close collaboration with the food industry. The lessons that may be learnt from that investigation will be directly relevant to our review of food legislation. Let me take this opportunity of congratulating all who work in the Health Service, the public health laboratory service, and local authorities which have contributed so magnificently to the investigation and control of the outbreak and the treatment of patients.
The country's excellent record for rapidly identifying and dealing with food poisoning outbreaks owes much to the work of the public health authority Service and its component bodies. In particular, their pioneering work on the detection and identification of the different kinds of salmonella have formed the scientific foundation that has made it possible for the Government to identify the nature of the problems and introduce the advice and measures necessary to combat the bacteria. The resources available through the laboratory service have increased significantly under the present Government, and this year alone will see a 14 per cent. cash increase. I believe that the service is probably the most efficient and effective of its kind in the world.
The hon. Gentleman went on to deal—by implication —with listeria. New cook-chill and cook-freeze guidelines for catering are to be published tomorrow, 22 June, and copies will be placed in the Library of the House. The guidelines sharpen and clarify existing advice. Copies are also being sent to all health authorities, which are being asked to review their operational procedures to ensure that they conform. We believe that all health authorities conform. We are drawing the publication to the attention of relevant trade organisations, and I hope that all who operate or propose to operate cook-chill or cook-freeze catering systems will follow the principles set out in the guidelines.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the review of the food hygiene regulations. The regulations are statutory, and we are proposing to issue, within two weeks, draft regulations for consultation with the industry and the public. That consultation will take some three months, and we expect to lay regulations before the House in the autumn. The regulations will deal with the temperature controls for food that is required to be kept chilled in the retail distribution system.
We propose to base the legislation on a stratified temperature regime, requiring a maximum of 5 deg C for products where the risk of the growth of pathogenic organisms is high, such as soft cheeses and ready-cooked products intended to be eaten without cooking or reheating, and a maximum of 8 deg C where, although it exists, the risk is lower. In both cases there may need to be a tolerance margin to allow for fluctuations over short periods—for example, during the defrost cycles. We shall need to allow a reasonably brief implementation period to give industry time to re-equip as necessary to meet the new temperature controls. I commend this firm action by the Government as evidence of our determination to protect the consumer, with the co-operation of the food manufacturer, preparer and distributor.

Mr. Andrew Bowden: Will my hon. Friend confirm that when the regulations come into force environmental health officers will have the power to enter shops and ensure that the regulations are being fully implemented?

Mr. Freeman: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance.
Perhaps I may now deal briefly with the points raised by several of my hon. Friends about environmental health officers.

Ms. Primarolo: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Freeman: Perhaps I might just explain to the House that, together with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, my Department is consulting local authorities, which are responsible for recruiting and controlling environmental health officers, about a review of whether their staffing is satisfactory, both now and prospectively, for the changes that are to come.
The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie) referred to a number of matters. I recognise the importance of the gene banks at Brogdale to which he referred. We are taking steps to protect those resources.
My hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin), whose important position as Chairman of the Select Committee I respect and understand, asked a number of questions about Bristol, as did a number of hon. Members. We are hoping to transfer not six but 70 posts in food research from Bristol to the other two locations. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will write to my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare in some detail about Bristol.
My hon. Friend also asked me about current arrangements which he thinks are unfair to United Kingdom producers, who are required to meet the cost of rigorous control measures that do not apply to competing importers. It is a very important subject. Our primary and overriding concern must be to protect the consumer against the risk of infection. Over 97 per cent. of the eggs consumed in the United Kingdom are from domestic production.
The most essential point must, therefore, be to ensure that effective measures are taken at every point in the chain from farmer to consumer. That is what we have done. We cannot just ban imports from other member states, as some people have simplistically assumed. We do not have the power to do so. However, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is tackling any possible risk from imports on two fronts. First, we are systematically sampling imports of eggs and testing them for salmonella infection. We shall take up with the member state concerned any case which is found of contamination with salmonella enteritidis. My right hon. Friend has already done so, on the one occasion that we found an infected sample.
Secondly—this is most important—we are working towards the establishment of effective controls at the point of production in other member states. That is the fundamental safeguard for the medium and longer term, but it can be achieved only by agreement on a Community-wide basis, which inevitably takes time.
The hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn) asked me about sell-by dates. The Government intend to phase out sell-by dates and to replace them with the use of use-by dates which will be compulsory for highly perishable foods. I hope that the House will welcome the change.
My hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) asked about environmental health officers. I hope that I have already answered his question, but I shall write to him in greater detail.
The hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) asked about green-top milk. I hope that the House will accept and welcome the Government's decision to permit the sale of green-top milk. That is clearly in accord with the wishes of consumers, but we shall ensure that the milk is properly labelled so that the risks, such as they are, are properly understood.
My hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) asked me a detailed question about the Centre for Applied Microbiology and Research. I shall write to him, but may I say to him now that we shall ensure that essential public health and food safety work continues, under Government control. As to the management of the control of the centre, we are still reviewing what to do, but the important point is that we want the centre to continue and to prosper.
The hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) asked about food irradiation and made an interesting contribution, but may I correct him about a point that he made when he intervened during the speech of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Food irradiation is used and has been used within the National Health Service.

Mr. Frank Cook: Has been.

Mr. Freeman: No. It is being used tonight at the Royal Marsden hospital. Food irradiation makes safe the food that is prepared for patients who are at particular risk.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Freeman: No. I have only four minutes left.
The hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) asked about airline meals. There are two aspects to her question. 1 share her concern, and that of other hon. Members, about airline meals. First, are the existing regulations being complied with? We have a range of regulations covering aircraft on the ground and in United Kingdom air space. We expect aircraft flying in international air space to follow the code of practice of the International Air Transport Association. I should be very pleased to meet the hon. Lady and her colleagues, and also environmental health officers, to pursue further her concerns, which I share.
The hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) opened the debate. His thesis was that changes in food research have led to an increase in food poisoning. There are three reasons why his thesis is false. It deserves good marks for effort but very low marks for logic.
First, food research in this country has not been curtailed. It is running now at twice the level, in real terms, as in 1978–79—at £26 million. We have an excellent record on food research. The difference between the Government and the hon. Gentleman is that we do not share his prejudice towards the near market research that is conducted by the private sector.
Secondly, food poisoning and the increase, which I concede, in the last two years in food poisoning is not unique to the United Kingdom. It is a common factor—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Stockton, North may laugh, but it is common to the countries of western Europe and to the United States. What is unique about this Government is the series of tough measures that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has taken to eradicate salmonella.

Mr. Robert Hughes: rose—

Mr. Freeman: Thirdly, and finally, the hon. Member for South Shields attempted to draw a conclusion from the change in research into botulism at Bristol and the recent incident. There is absolutely no connection between the

two. The recent outbreak of botulism was due to the lack of heat treatment by the food processor. It had nothing whatsoever to do with research at Bristol.
The Government have taken firm action as regards food safety and food research. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) for recognising that. We have set up the Richmond committee, and we have agreed to review food legislation and that review is well in hand. We have an excellent public health laboratory service which is the envy of the world, and we have increased resources for research. We are working in partnership with the private sector.
I urge the House to support the Government amendment and to throw out the Opposition motion.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 211, Noes 318.

Division No. 256]
[6.59 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Dixon, Don


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Dobson, Frank


Allen, Graham
Doran, Frank


Alton, David
Douglas, Dick


Anderson, Donald
Duffy, A. E. P.


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Eadie, Alexander


Armstrong, Hilary
Eastham, Ken


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Fatchett, Derek


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Fearn, Ronald


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Fisher, Mark


Battle, John
Flannery, Martin


Beckett, Margaret
Flynn, Paul


Beggs, Roy
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Beith, A. J.
Foster, Derek


Bell, Stuart
Foulkes, George


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Fraser, John


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Galbraith, Sam


Bidwell, Sydney
Galloway, George


Blair, Tony
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Blunkett, David
Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)


Boateng, Paul
George, Bruce


Boyes, Roland
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Bradley, Keith
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Gordon, Mildred


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Gould, Bryan


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Graham, Thomas


Buckley, George J.
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Callaghan, Jim
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Grocott, Bruce


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Harman, Ms Harriet


Cartwright, John
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Heller, Eric S.


Clay, Bob
Henderson, Doug


Clelland, David
Hinchliffe, David


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)


Cohen, Harry
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Home Robertson, John


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Hood, Jimmy


Corbett, Robin
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Howells, Geraint


Cousins, Jim
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Crowther, Stan
Hoyle, Doug


Cryer, Bob
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Cummings, John
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Cunningham, Dr John
Illsley, Eric


Dalyell, Tam
Ingram, Adam


Darling, Alistair
Janner, Greville


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Johnston, Sir Russell


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)


Dewar, Donald
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)






Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Kennedy, Charles
Richardson, Jo


Kirkwood, Archy
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Leadbitter, Ted
Robertson, George


Leighton, Ron
Robinson, Geoffrey


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Rooker, Jeff


Livingstone, Ken
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Livsey, Richard
Rowlands, Ted


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Ruddock, Joan


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Salmond, Alex


Loyden, Eddie
Sedgemore, Brian


McAllion, John
Sheerman, Barry


McAvoy, Thomas
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Macdonald, Calum A.
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


McFall, John
Short, Clare


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Skinner, Dennis


McKelvey, William
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


McLeish, Henry
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Maclennan, Robert
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


McNamara, Kevin
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)


McWilliam, John
Snape, Peter


Madden, Max
Spearing, Nigel


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Steel, Rt Hon David


Marek, Dr John
Steinberg, Gerry


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Stott, Roger


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Strang, Gavin


Martlew, Eric
Straw, Jack


Meale, Alan
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Michael, Alun
Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Turner, Dennis


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Wall, Pat


Morgan, Rhodri
Wallace, James


Morley, Elliott
Walley, Joan


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Wareing, Robert N.


Mowlam, Marjorie
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Mullin, Chris
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Murphy, Paul
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Nellist, Dave
Wigley, Dafydd


O'Brien, William
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Winnick, David


Patchett, Terry
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Pendry, Tom
Wray, Jimmy


Pike, Peter L.
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)



Prescott, John
Tellers for the Ayes:


Primarolo, Dawn
Mr. Frank Haynes and


Quin, Ms Joyce
Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie.


Redmond, Martin



NOES


Adley, Robert
Blackburn, Dr John G.


Aitken, Jonathan
Body, Sir Richard


Alexander, Richard
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Boswell, Tim


Allason, Rupert
Bottomley, Peter


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia


Amess, David
Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)


Amos, Alan
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)


Arbuthnot, James
Bowis, John


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard


Ashby, David
Brandon-Bravo, Martin


Aspinwall, Jack
Brazier, Julian


Atkinson, David
Bright, Graham


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)


Baldry, Tony
Browne, John (Winchester)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)


Batiste, Spencer
Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Buck, Sir Antony


Bellingham, Henry
Budgen, Nicholas


Bendall, Vivian
Burns, Simon


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Burt, Alistair


Benyon, W.
Butcher, John


Bevan, David Gilroy
Butler, Chris


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Butterfill, John





Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Hayward, Robert


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Heddle, John


Carrington, Matthew
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Carttiss, Michael
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Cash, William
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Chapman, Sydney
Hill, James


Chope, Christopher
Hind, Kenneth


Churchill, Mr
Holt, Richard


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hordern, Sir Peter


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Howard, Michael


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Colvin, Michael
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Conway, Derek
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Cope, Rt Hon John
Hunter, Andrew


Cormack, Patrick
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Couchman, James
Irvine, Michael


Cran, James
Irving, Charles


Critchley, Julian
Jack, Michael


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Jackson, Robert


Curry, David
Janman, Tim


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Day, Stephen
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Devlin, Tim
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Dicks, Terry
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Dorrell, Stephen
Key, Robert


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Kilfedder, James


Dover, Den
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Dunn, Bob
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Dykes, Hugh
Kirkhope, Timothy


Eggar, Tim
Knapman, Roger


Emery, Sir Peter
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Evennett, David
Knox, David


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Lamont, Pt Hon Norman


Fallon, Michael
Lang, Ian


Favell, Tony
Latham, Michael


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lawrence, Ivan


Fishburn, John Dudley
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Forman, Nigel
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Forth, Eric
Lilley, Peter


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Fox, Sir Marcus
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Franks, Cecil
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Freeman, Roger
McCrindle, Robert


French, Douglas
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Fry, Peter
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Gardiner, George
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Maclean, David


Gill, Christopher
McLoughlin, Patrick


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


Glyn, Dr Alan
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Madel, David


Goodlad, Alastair
Major, Rt Hon John


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Mans, Keith


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Maples, John


Gorst, John
Marland, Paul


Gow, Ian
Marlow, Tony


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Gregory, Conal
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Maude, Hon Francis


Grist, Ian
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Ground, Patrick
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Grylls, Michael
Mellor, David


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Hague, William
Miller, Sir Hal


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Mills, Iain


Hampson, Dr Keith
Miscampbell, Norman


Hannam, John
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Mitchell, Sir David


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Moate, Roger


Harris, David
Moore, Rt Hon John


Haselhurst, Alan
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Hawkins, Christopher
Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)


Hayes, Jerry
Moss, Malcolm






Moynihan, Hon Colin
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Neale, Gerrard
Steen, Anthony


Needham, Richard
Stern, Michael


Nelson, Anthony
Stevens, Lewis


Neubert, Michael
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Nicholls, Patrick
Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Stokes, Sir John


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Norris, Steve
Summerson, Hugo


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Oppenheim, Phillip
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Page, Richard
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Paice, James
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Patnick, Irvine
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Pawsey, James
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Thorne, Neil


Porter, David (Waveney)
Thornton, Malcolm


Price, Sir David
Thurnham, Peter


Raffan, Keith
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Rathbone, Tim
Tracey, Richard


Redwood, John
Tredinnick, David


Renton, Tim
Trippier, David


Rhodes James, Robert
Trotter, Neville


Riddick, Graham
Twinn, Dr Ian


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Viggers, Peter


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Roe, Mrs Marion
Waller, Gary


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Walters, Sir Dennis


Rost, Peter
Ward, John


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Ryder, Richard
Warren, Kenneth


Sackville, Hon Tom
Watts, John


Sainsbury, Hon Tim
Wells, Bowen


Sayeed, Jonathan
Whitney, Ray


Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Widdecombe, Ann


Shaw, David (Dover)
Wiggin, Jerry


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Wilkinson, John


Shelton, Sir William
Wilshire, David


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Winterton, Nicholas


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Wolfson, Mark


Sims, Roger
Wood, Timothy


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Yeo, Tim


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Speller, Tony
Younger, Rt Hon George


Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)



Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Tellers for the Noes:


Squire, Robin
Mr. Tony Durant and


Stanbrook, Ivor
Mr. David Lightbown.

Question accordingly negatived.

Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.

Resolved,
`That this House commends the Government for implementing a comprehensive range of measures to maintain safety throughout the food chain and to improve the scientific knowledge on which these are based; notes with approval the Agricultural and Food Research Council's decision to stengthen the work of its Institute of Food Research at the Norwich and Reading sites by expanding programmes on food safety and nutrition; endorses the Government's policy of transferring responsibility for near market research and development to industry, enabling more Government funds to be channelled into strategic research; congratulates the Government on the substantial increase in resources for research into food safety during the past ten years; and expresses confidence in the Government's policies on food safety and research and development.'.

Local Government and Housing Bill

Order for Third Reading read—[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]

The Minister for Local Government (Mr. John Gummer): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
The Government see this as the last of a group of Bills which reform local government, to strengthen it for what will be an increasingly important role for it to play. There has been a tendency for Opposition Members—when there are many of them here—to claim that the Government are less than enthusiastic about local government, and for Conservative Members to point to the extreme examples of the destruction of local government by extremist Labour councils. Neither of those assessments properly represents the whole spectrum of local government. It is the duty of the House to recognise that local government plays a crucial role in the government of the United Kingdom—a role that cannot and ought not to be replaced by any other part of Government.
Secondly, the extremist exceptions rather than the general run of good and well-managed councils have tended to be the focus of attention. The purpose of this Bill is to strengthen the ability of local councils to carry out their role of protecting the people for whom they are responsible and to enable them to provide properly the services that are necessary.
For this reason, we started with the measures that derive from the Widdicombe report. We did not go as far as the committee wanted us to in imposing restrictions on what is known as twin tracking; we were less radical than the committee would have had us be. As most members of it were local government people of real understanding, none of our proposals can undermine local government in the way that the Opposition sometimes suggest that they do.
We sought to strengthen the independence of officers and to ensure that they are seen as non-party political figures. It would be a cause of great sadness if we allowed the efforts of the past 100 years to be overcome. In the middle of the 19th century and thereafter local government officers established their independence at a time when in Birmingham, for instance, Conservative authorities dismissed officers because they were Liberals and Liberal authorities dismissed officers because they were Conservatives. However, we got over that; we grew up and differentiated clearly between the party-political role of elected people and the independent advisory role of officers. That distinction is a crucial part of democracy in Britain—

Mr. Tony Banks: rose—

Mr. Gummer: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment.
It was to establish this independence that the Widdicombe committee suggested its reforms which, in large measure, and with certain improvements—in the sense of having softened some of the proposals—we have introduced here.
We have witnessed a remarkable transformation in the Opposition's attitude to the Widdicombe measures during the passage of the Bill. In the early stages of the committee, they tabled a range of amendments which would have


removed all our requirements and undermined the entire proposal—including the part that referred to chief officers. Many of these amendments were so close to being wrecking amendments that they were not selected for debate.
On Report, a new attitude was expressed. The Opposition now accept that the restrictions on the political activities of chief officers are acceptable and reasonable—

Dr. John Cunningham: We always did.

Mr. Gummer: It is all very well for the hon. Gentleman to say that. If it is true, were the Opposition amendments which were tabled to remove these restrictions tabled with his agreement? If the Opposition always agreed with these restrictions, why did they table the amendments? Why do they not say publicly that it was wrong for the chief executive of a Welsh local authority to be the chairman of the local Labour party at the same time?

Mr. David Blunkett: Will the Minister acknowledge—he must be aware of this, having examined the evidence given to Widdicombe—that the Labour party placed on record, before Widdicombe reported, its belief in precisely the proposals that were contained in amendments in the names of Labour Members last week, proposing that the restriction should apply to chief officers and their deputies? I know that is so because I gave that evidence to Widdicombe.

Mr. Gummer: That makes nonsense of all the amendments that were tabled in Committee. It suggests that originally, while that may have been the position, pressure from—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I hope that the Minister is not now seeking to open a debate on amendments that were neither selected nor debated in Committee.

Mr. Gummer: I would not dream of doing that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Now, on Third Reading, we have in the Bill clear distinctions between party political activity and independent advice. Those distinctions should be supported by Members in all parts of the House. They are now more clearly supported than they were at the time of the Committee deliberations. So different is the position that many of us were surprised to hear what was said on Report, but we welcome those who have reformed.
If it is right for chief officers and assistant chief officers to be independent politically, it must also be right for those other officers who give advice to the council, who deal with the public and who are representative of the council. That is what Widdicombe suggested and what we are doing.

Mr. Tony Banks: Widdicombe looked at the whole matter of so-called political abuse and could find no evidence to support the various wild allegations that have been made by the Minister and his hon. Friends. If it were a matter of looking at individual officers in local authorities and seeing what they did, and then deciding whether they should be excluded from political activity —because of their position and the advice that they gave —there might have been a meeting of minds on the issue.

But the Government have not taken that approach. They have taken the crude approach of salary level without any reference to the functions of the officers concerned.

Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman was present for much of the Committee deliberations, but obviously he was not listening if that is what he thinks happened. The Widdicombe committee investigated these matters and suggested that there should be an absolute bar on all local government officers of principal officer level or above. The salary figure merely reflects the level at which that recommendation applies throughout the country.
But we have softened that suggestion by removing the absolute bar and enabling people to appeal to an adjudicator so that he will specifically take into account the type of job done by the individual, which is precisely the point that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) made. I am sad that there was not a meeting of minds. There was no meeting of minds because of the closed minds of Opposition Members, compared with the open minds of Members on the Government Benches.

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Bill will do much to restore the credibility of local government and of some of its officers? Great damage was done to the whole of local government when Derbyshire county council appointed a former Labour MP, who survived in his job for only nine months. That extremely expensive job training scheme did great disservice to the whole system of local goverment in that a chief officer said that he would not work for a Conservative administration.

Mr. Gummer: Hence a sadness which could have been overcome in Committee. If the Labour party takes the view that we are told it takes, why did not Opposition Members condemn the appointment of Mr. Race—[Interruption.] Why do they want to exclude Mr. Race by supporting the political restrictions on chief officers? They cannot have it both ways.
We wish to ensure that there is a real distinction between those who seek to serve the public party politically and those who seek to serve the public independently in local government. Both are honourable callings, but they are different and there should be no way in which they could be confused. That is the British principle. It may not be the German or French principle, but it is the British one. It has been hard fought and we should be supporting it.

Mr. William O'Brien: The Minister continues to make wild statements and sweeping references about people who advise councils. Will he now spell out the category and numbers of people involved? The amendments that we tabled in Committee were designed to elicit that information from the right hon. Gentleman. We are still waiting for it.

Mr. Gummer: The criteria are not only in the Bill, but we extended the Bill at the hon. Gentleman's request with an amendment which showed that those criteria specifically apply to the terms under which the adjudicator would make individual and group decisions. The hon. Gentleman asked for that to be done and we have done it.
Another way in which the Bill strengthens local government—the first being the way in which it gives real


strength to the independence of officers—is that it clarifies the opportunities and powers by which local authorities are able to assist economic regeneration.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Concern is being expressed by my hon. Friends and others about councillors, being members of authorities, who owe rent as council tenants or rates as ratepayers. Has my right hon. Friend yet had a chance to think about how we might tackle that problem to ensure that when the community charge comes in next year those councilors—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Are those matters within the scope of the Bill?

Mr. Bennett: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker. They come under Widdicombe—[HoN. MEMBERS: "No."] Will councillors who do not pay the charge be brought to account and—

Mr. George Howarth: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Having already committed the offence of misleading the House into believing that certain things, such as councillors who may or may not owe money, come within the scope of the Bill, is it in order for the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett), having been called to order by you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, then to go on to pretend that such matters come within the scope of the Bill? All those who were members of the Committee know that that is not mentioned anywhere in the Bill.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I must admit that a Bill which contains 164 clauses and 11 schedules is not one that I grasp instantly. However, I find it difficult to discover any reference to these matters in the Bill, and I trust that we shall not have any further references to them in this debate.

Mr. Gummer: I was saying—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that hon. Members, including Ministers, will allow the Chair to make some observations on a matter that is before the House.

Mr. Gummer: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I thought that you were sitting down.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I can well understand the Minister not being certain whether I was sitting down or standing up. I assure him that I was on my feet.

Mr. Gummer: I share that problem with you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and therefore I not only apologise but sympathise. I do not regard the point that has arisen as being part of the Bill. That was the reason, no doubt, why you did not allow a certain amendment to be selected and as the Bill stands there is no reference to that subject. But I am sure, as a matter of general principle, that those who seek to enforce the law should themselves regard the law. It is more difficult to ask people to pay bills if one does not pay them oneself.

Mr. Allen McKay: rose—

Mr. Gummer: We must get off that subject. I do not wish to court other than the pleasure of Mr. Deputy Speaker, so I will not give way.
Another way in which the Bill supports and strengthens local government is the way in which it increases the clarity with which we are able to use local government powers to

encourage economic regeneration. That has been widely supported and is now thought in general to be a useful provision.
The Bill also changes the capital finance scheme so that, in future, more reasonable account can be taken of the needs for capital spending of local authorities, and also their resources. Up to now, there has been a problem because the rules have been laid down so that local authorities with large capital resources have had to have capital allocations similar to those of local authorities with small capital resources. That has militated against directing capital allocations to those with the greatest capital needs. The proposals in the Bill will strengthen local democracy because local authorities with real needs will no longer be unable to get the capital allocations necessary simply because the system makes it so difficult for them to do so.
This Bill also provides additional strengthening for local authorities because of the changes that it makes to local authority companies. It is crucial that the public should know what is going on. The accountability of the electorate is a central part of general democratic accountability. There has been insufficient accountability to the electorate by local authorities for their companies. It has not been clear whether the companies are arm's length organisations or merely a convenient way of carrying out local council decisions through a company structure. In future, that will be made clear and will strengthen accountability.

Mr. John Battle: I welcomed the announcement last Wednesday when the Parliamentary Under-Secretary said that the Government had already exempted from part V of the Bill registered housing associations, which was news to us. Will the Bill be altered in another place to bring that into effect?

Mr. Gummer: That is correct. It is a pleasure for Conservative Members to hear the hon. Gentleman welcome that move. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will also accept that, on several occasions during these debates, we have sought to meet one or two—not all, I agree—of his suggestions.
I hope that it will be clear to the local electorate exactly how local authorities organise themselves. If they have an arm's length company, it will be a company. However, if it is not arm's length it will quite properly be seen as part of the local authority's capital structure.
The Bill also strengthens local authorites through the housing finance arrangements. Up to now, the accountability of local authorities has been extremely difficult to unearth because of the way in which the housing is arranged. Some local authorities have taken money from their housing account and used it on the general rate fund. Other local authorities have taken money from the general rate fund and generally supported council tenants with their rents, regardless of whether those tenants were in need. That has made it difficult for the local electorate or tenants to know whether the housing was properly and efficiently run and whether they were getting value for money. The new housing finance arrangements will strengthen local accountability. The Bill will certainly give considerable strength to local authorities by enabling local councils to deal with renewal areas and renovation grants so that they can concentrate the help on those in need, instead of spreading it across larger numbers of people.
In all those ways, the Bill sets out to be earnest of this Government's support for local councils and local authorities throughout the country. It strengthens officers' independence, cuts away at the politicisation of the independence of advice, gives greater clarity to the discretionary spending of local authorities, brings capital financing much closer to the needs of local authorities, ensures that local authorities' companies are properly controlled and clearly states what sort of companies they are. Its housing finance arrangements ensure that the local authorities' way of dealing with their income is clear to the electorate and their tenants. Above all, it ensures that aids and help are directed to those in need, both through its capital finance changes and in the way in which it deals with housing, renewal areas and renovation grants.
When the Bill is enacted it will be the third of the triumvirate of Acts which will revolutionise the basis on which local authorities operate in this country. There is no easy answer to the problems of local democracy, and no wholesale reorganisation has ever achieved the wonderful results which people seek. We need a new basis upon which local authorities can become better enablers, facilitators and servants of the communities which they are elected. Local authorities will be able to perform those functions all the better because of the passing of this Bill.

Mr. William O'Brien: If there is one matter on which we agree with the Minister, it is that there is a difference of attitude between Opposition Members and Conservative Members on the care and development of local government. At least we believe in local government whereas the Minister's contribution suggests that the Government are bent on its demise.
With this Bill, the Government reach their half century of legislation undermining the basic tenets of local democracy. The time is fast approaching when the batsmen of this game of cricket—those people responsible for the demise of local government—should all be sent back to the pavilion and out of the game. In last Thursday's election, the electors gave an overwhelming vote of no confidence to the Prime Minister, and I am sure that that will be repeated to other Ministers, including the Secretary of State for the Environment.
Council tenants and other owner-occupiers who are buying their homes face ever-increasing mortgage rates. On 24 May, interest rates rose to 14 per cent.—the tenth jump in borrowing costs since last summer. This Bill deals with housing. It is significant to note that in the past 12 months people have had to find £40, £50 or £60 per week extra for mortgage repayments. The sum of Tory economic policy has been to make the people who can least pay, pay more. People who got on their bikes to look for work in line with Ministers' suggestions are fortunate if they can afford to purchase a bike shed to live in because of the policies of this Tory Government.
The poll tax bears no relation to people's ability to pay. We do not want the usual tired intervention from the Minister about people in top income brackets paying 15 times as much towards local government costs as the poorest.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: As far as I can see, the Bill contains nothing about the community charge. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will stick to what is in the Bill.

Mr. O'Brien: I think that if we examine the Bill we will find that there is a reference to the community charge as introduced by the Minister. However, I take your point, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I refer to the Scottish part of the Bill involving legislation which deals with the poll tax.
It is true that the colleague of the Secretary of State for the Environment, the Secretary of State for Social Security, does not believe that there are any poor people. We know perfectly well who has had the greatest benefit from the recent Budgets—Tory supporters who are well off and do not have to worry about inflation.
This is a sorry patchwork of a Bill, a hotch-potch of a Bill. It might as well say, "Whatever the Secretary of State does is deemed to be right and whatever local government does is deemed to be wrong." Local government is always wrong, whether it is in partnership with the private sector to attract business investment and create real jobs or employing an accounts clerk who puts a political poster in his window at home. Local authorities and people who work in local authorities just cannot win.
The Bill gives the Secretary of State for the Environment more than 120 new powers. Perhaps when he cannot get to sleep at night, instead of counting sheep he counts the powers that will accrue to him from the Bill. He can decide by regulation what constitutes political activity or how much a local authority can spend on economic development, or what falls within and what falls without the housing revenue account. The Prime Minister has often said how important it is to trust the people, and that the Government intend to trust the people more and more, but we do not hear much about that nowadays. On the evidence of the Bill, the Prime Minister is saying that we should trust the Secretary of State. Like many people outside this House, we feel that we cannot trust the Secretary of State—he is far too busy taking power away from democratically-elected and accountable local authority councillors and concentrating it in the hands of central Government. That is a result of the Bill.
Part I involves civil liberties and reshapes local government, at least until after the next general election. The Minister has talked at length about the so-called twin-tracking, citing every example as though it were automatically a significant abuse. We do not believe that that is necessarily so. Almost all the examples that the Minister gave involved people at chief executive or chief officer level. We accept that the head of an authority's paid service, its chief officers and its deputies, should not be serving as councillors in another authority and a new clause that we moved in Committee would have ensured that that did not happen. The Minister has not answered the arguments that we put in Committee about the injustice of the proposed restrictions on political activity. He has not even told us what those restrictions will be, although on the basis of the Government's White Paper we can hazard a guess that they could cover everything but the right to belong to a political party, so people employed in local authorities will be prevented from undertaking any activity involving community matters.
We can also guess when the House is likely to have the chance to debate the regulations. Our experience has led us to assume what many Tory Members will have realised —that we shall be debating the regulations on the future of


local government at midnight or 2 o'clock in the morning. That is when the Government always introduce regulations to control local government.

Mr. Allen McKay: I understand that the starting point for disqualification is a salary of £13,500. As a result of these regulations, many colleagues in the fire service who have helped me will not be able to do so or even put up a window poster. The Government's measures will thus be an abuse of people's civil liberties because they will be denied the right to belong to a political party just because they earn that amount or more.

Mr. O'Brien: My hon. Friend is correct, and I shall draw attention to that later.
When the Government allow us to debate these regulations, if we are lucky we shall have one minute of debate per page. When we debated the poll tax regulations, we dealt with 89 pages in 90 minutes. If the Government talk of democracy and freedom of speech, the House is entitled to a better opportunity to discuss these matters, which are important to local government. So much for the parliamentary process, if this is the way the Government treat the future of local government.
The Minister has repeatedly referred to the Government's generosity in providing for an adjudicator, although the amendments that he introduced on Report do not address the civil liberties issue. He said:
I suspect that large groups of people will be excluded because of the nature of their activities. Many individuals will also be excluded."—[Official Report, 13 June 1989; Vol. 154, c. 780.]
We are talking about the rights of ordinary people who work in local authorities to participate in politics and to be the active citizens of whom the Prime Minister speaks so highly.
Under clause 18, a local authority is not just a county, district or London borough council. The phrase includes fire authorities, transport authorities and waste disposal authorities, not to mention the national parks boards. According to the Government, it is acceptable for the chairman of the London residuary body to be a prominent Tory and for the chairman of the Yorkshire regional health authority to be an active Tory and a one-time Tory candidate. It is hypocritical of Conservative Members to vote to suppress the right of local authority employees to play an active part in a political party—especially as senior posts are appointed by the Government—when a fireman of firewoman will not be able to act as treasurer of his or her local Tory party or Labour party because of these restrictions.
What about education staff who are not teachers, lecturers or principals? What about Soulbury advisers, who generally earn more than £13,500, and youth and community service workers? As we saw in Committee, the Government who so blithely take away the rights of council employees are happy for an officer in the Department of Social Security to speak at a National Front rally. To add insult to injury, that civil servant could appeal, as of right, to a tripartite panel including a trade union representative. Only those local government officers caught by the salary restriction can appeal to the adjudicator. We understand that there will be no one adjudicator for England and Wales and, so the Minister says, one for Scotland. Will the Minister spell out the nature of the political restrictions and the groups of people likely to be exempted? People in local government want

answers to those questions. It is grossly unfair to leave thousands of them in suspense simply because the Government will not answer our questions.
I want to spend a little time considering the role of local authority councillors. Double standards apply to them as compared with Members of Parliament.

Mr. Gummer: The House would benefit from a little clarification. The hon. Gentleman and I agree about the political activities of chief officers and chief executives. He said that he was not in favour of them serving as elected members of other authorities. He did not say whether he believed that they should not have political affiliations. Will he publicly state that he does not think that a chief executive should also be the chairman of a local political party?

Mr. O'Brien: The Labour party submitted evidence to the Widdicombe committee. Those who serve in local government, like those who serve in this House, are entitled to some freedom. They are entitled to please themselves in certain matters. Unlike Conservative Members, we believe that there should be freedom for the individual, including many of those working in local government.

Mr. Gummer: Is the House to conclude, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman thinks it perfectly proper for the chief executive of a local authority also to be chairman of the local Labour party?

Mr. O'Brien: It is obvious that the Minister was not in the House last night when many Conservative Members were campaigning for freedom of speech in colleges, polytechnics and universities. The House suffered more than 40 minutes of their rhetoric. Tonight the Minister is saying that there should be no freedom for those in local government. How hypocritical can the Government be?

Mr. Gummer: It is clear that the hon. Gentleman thinks it perfectly proper for the chief executive of a local authority, who is supposed to advise all parties within that authority, also to be chairman of the local Labour party. The public will be astounded by that and the Society of Local Government Chief Officers will be appalled.

Mr. O'Brien: The public will recognise that the Opposition stand square in everything that we do. In contrast, last night Conservative Members campaigned for freedom of speech in colleges, polytechnics and universities, but tonight they do not want freedom of speech for people in local government. Those are the facts on which the public will judge this debate. They will understand that the Tory view of freedom for the individual is that it is right for some but wrong for others.

Mr. Allan Roberts: Many chief officers and chief executives of local authorities hold strong political opinions. Whether or not they keep their opinions secret is surely a matter for them. I served for some considerable time as a councillor and as chairman of a major committee of a major local authority. I had very good professional advice from chief officers, regardless of their political views. I was happy for chief officers to be members of the political party of their choice—not necessarily the Labour party—because I felt that they were exercising their democratic rights.

Mr. O'Brien: When I served in local government we never asked the officers about their political views; we asked for professional views on certain issues. The Government want chief officers to outline their political views before obtaining a position.
Both in Committee and on Report we discussed at length the need for a proper system of remuneration for local authority representatives. The Government would prefer local government to be run by wealthy and retired people. Councils would become elite clubs. Perhaps the Secretary of State envisages councils that meet once a year to hand out contracts, having been given no doubt a good meal. The Opposition attach greater value to local government. Members of Parliament are paid a salary, and those who struggle to live on that salary can line their pockets with lucrative directorships and consultancies. The Government, who have a 100-plus majority, ignore the need for a proper, practical system of remuneration for councillors.

Mr. McLoughlin: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point about remuneration. Does he agree that many councils could make it easier for people to attend meetings and not lose money if they held meetings in the evenings? Many councils refuse to do that.

Mr. O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman shows his lack of experience. If councils meet in the evening, the officers have to be present. They then take time off in lieu. If they are not at their desks during the day, they are letting down the community and in many instances also their colleagues. Evening meetings are not necessarily good for a local authority.
Under the Bill, councillors could face a £1,000 fine if they fail to declare their direct and indirect pecuniary interests in the form prescribed by the Secretary of State. There is a threat to local authority representatives of a £1,000 fine if they do not declare their interests. There is no doubt that we support accountability and value for money, but councillors already have to register their interests and declare them at meetings when necessary. They can then be barred from speaking and voting and may be required to leave the meeting.
In contrast, Members of Parliament have simply to declare an interest and may then carry on with business as usual. They are not subjected to a £1,000 fine. It is no good the Government and Conservative Members saying that it is the Opposition's responsibility to bring forward appropriate measures. If the Government are really concerned about probity in public life, they should seek to set this House in order and to put the matter straight before they begin to criticise local government.
Consultation is another important issue. Whenever a contentious issue arises, the Government promise that they will consult local authority associations. When they are feeling especially generous, they say that they will also consult the relevant professional bodies. We are not convinced one bit by the Government's protestations on the issue. The Government's new clause on Members' interests was brought forward without proper consultation and at the expense of other key amendments, which had been promised in Committee. Where is the amendment specifying the criteria that the adjudicator will use in hearing appeals? Where is the promised amendment on the question of when the adjudicator will hear appeals? Where is the promised fitness standard for houses in

multiple occupation? What guarantee is there of meaningful consultation on the range of issues that the Bill pretends to address? The Government's attitude to consultation is the same as their attitude to Parliament —a cross between "Nanny knows best" and outright contempt.
The Bill, with all its clauses and schedules, provides once again only for the privileged as opposed to the under-privileged. As a result of the spurious, false and devastating attitude shown in the Bill and by Conservative Members towards local government, we shall be voting against Third Reading, and we ask Conservative Members who have any respect for local government to join us in the Lobby.

Mr. David Nicholson: As the first speaker to follow the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien), I should note—and I am sure that it was noted by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government—that no reply was given to his clear challenge.

Mr. Gummer: I received a clear reply. The Labour party is committed to the principle that the chief executive of a local authority can be the chairman of a local party.

Mr. Nicholson: Indeed, my right hon. Friend did not receive the assurance he requested. That is a point that will be remembered about the speech of the hon. Member for Normanton.
I welcome two of the changes made on Report. Declaring an interest as a consultant for the Association of British Chambers of Commerce, I welcome the concession on amendments and the role played by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) last week in ensuring that people who provide their services voluntarily as directors and secretaries to local authority controlled companies will not be regarded as associated with the parent authority by virtue of that connection alone. I welcome the amendments tabled by the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, South-West (Mrs. Bottomley).
I also welcome the power introduced on Report, as proposed in the Widdicombe report, to set up a register of local authority members' interests. I tabled a written question on the subject some weeks ago and I can confirm that people in local authorities welcome the protection against the possible abuse of powers. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government made the matter clear last week when he distinguished the considerable powers, especially in planning matters, that local authority councillors have from those of Members of Parliament.
I welcome the general thrust of part I of the Bill on which the hon. Member for Normanton has concentrated much of his attention this evening. In recent weeks, I have become aware that twin tracking has crept in even in areas such as Somerset, both in my own constituency and nearby. To be fair, it is an area where possibly valuable use may be made of the right of appeal to the independent adjudicator, and I welcome that role. However, to use the argument that my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) used in the debate on the Self-Governing Schools Etc. (Scotland) Bill last night, it is most important that certain protections should exist, even if the abuse is not currently widely prevalent. We need that protection.
I will give an example to show why that protection is necessary. I note that the Democrat party, or whatever it has decided to be called now, is not represented in the debate. I guess that in southern England the Democrat party is now in a terminal state and I observe, therefore, that in the south-west the Labour party may have passed its electoral nadir. If the Labour party is likely to gain county and district council seats from the Democrat party, we need to be prepared and protected against the use and abuse of twin tracking to which, as shown in the speech by the hon. Member for Normanton, the Labour party is still very much committed.
No speech of mine on this Bill would be complete without a reference to housing. I note that the hon. Member for Normanton referred to housing only in passing. I will speak briefly on the subject because I want to pursue my objectives with my right hon. and hon. Friends by diplomacy. Without claiming any particular virtue, because I may be wrong in my concern on this issue, I must say that, apart from the amendment moved so ably last week by my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling), which was well supported by those who spoke in the debate, I am the only Conservative Member to raise that particular concern during the Bill's progress. When considering my right hon. Friend's proposal and the Government's counterproposal, I hope that there can be some meeting of minds on the subject in another place. However, I must emphasise that the proposal affects only the margins. We are considering perhaps only dozens of homes per constituency in national parks and similar areas.
I have made it clear all along that my concern has been for those seeking rented accommodation, whether council, private sector or housing association, in the urban areas of constituencies such as mine. I have spoken to the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Mr. Trippier), about this. I do not especially care whether it is the Genghis Khan district council or the St. Francis of Assisi housing association that provides the homes. They are needed at a cost that the tenant, the taxpayer and the community charge payer can afford. I leave that thought with my hon. Friend. However, I believe that he recognises that need and that he also recognises that the position has been made more difficult over the past year by the increase —for which we all understand the reason—in house prices, especially in the south, as a result of which those who originally would have bought into the private sector are now obliged to seek rented accommodation.
Finally, I welcome the measures in the Bill on home improvement grants and renewal areas. I look forward to seeing the ways in which they will help some of my constituents who own their own homes, but whose homes were not traditionally built so that my constituents are now facing problems with resale and mortgageability. I am not referring to the BISF housing that was spoken about in Committee and about which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State was so helpful.
I hope that the Bill will be the foundation for a new, positive and constructive concordat between local government and central Government. I hope that following this Bill and the major Local Government Finance Act 1988, we will allow the waters to settle over the 10 years of what has been an extremely turbulent relationship between central Government and local government over the sharing of powers. I am sure that my

right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench know the difficulties that some of those contests have caused to those who seek to serve our party in local government. I support the Bill.

Mr. George Howarth: I had not intended to comment on the speech made by the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) because I always found him to be a reasonable and fair member of the Committee who always had interesting things to say, but when he declared his interest as a consultant to the Association of British Chambers of Commerce—a fine organisation, in my experience, and I have no bones to pick with it—it occurred to me that there was a strong element of hypocrisy in the hon. Gentleman rising to declare his interest and to thank the Government for the concessions that they have made in that direction, while supporting the provisions in the Bill that would take civil liberties away from many people who work in local government. Can the hon. Gentleman not see that there is a direct parallel between the power that he is exercising as a Back-Bench Member of the governing party and the powers being taken away from ordinary individuals who do not seek to peddle any influence, but simply to serve their political beliefs and to serve in local government? I am sure that it was unintentional, but it was hypocritical and mirrored the stinking hypocrisy of what the Government are doing.

Mr. David Nicholson: I do not accept that point at all. Would the hon. Gentleman have preferred me not to declare my interest? In doing so, I was paying a tribute to the role played in this matter by his hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett).

Mr. Howarth: I was anxious not to make a direct attack on the hon. Gentleman and prefaced my remarks by saying so. I was simply saying that the hon. Gentleman has the freedom to stand up in the House of Commons and to declare an interest in the Association of British Chambers of Commerce. I respect the fact that he made such a declaration. However, he was able to do that at the same time as the House is taking democratic rights away from members or would-be members of local authorities who happen to serve in local government.
The Government seem to have got themselves in an extraordinary mess. They have not sat down rationally and said, "What are we to do about local government? What reforms are necessary? What shall we do about housing policy? What are the problems and how should we proceed?" The Government seem to indulge in policy making not by rational analysis but by the pursuit of prejudice. That prejudice permeates every part of the Bill and all that the Government have done in the past two to four years or in some cases their whole 10-year period in office. That is what I find most alarming and that is why in the long run—it is already starting—the electorate of the British people will decide that they should like something more rational than a Government who operate purely on blind prejudice instead of by serious consideration of any given set of problems.
What we would have liked to see in the Bill, but which does not appear, is a systematic, logical and coherent look at the powers and functions of local government in a modern society. We would have liked consideration of all


the things that are happening in housing policy and an objective look at the housing needs of the country. But no, there was nothing of the sort. What we got instead were lurid examples from the Minister of State. I notice that he is not in his place—no doubt he has something else to do.
The basis of the provisions on twin tracking did not proceed from any great national outrage or even national concern about what was happening in local government. They proceeded because of a handful of examples of which the Minister of State painted a lurid picture and on the basis of which he then sought to justify his legislation. At no time in our Committee discussions of the relevant clauses did the Minister of State ever give any rational or thoughtful justification for what the Government were doing. It came down to the half dozen individuals in local authorities around the country who the Minister of State, or those who were winding him up, felt should be controlled by legislation. It is extraordinary that a Bill should be placed before Parliament merely because certain people—including the Minister of State—are concerned about what is happening in half a dozen places because of half a dozen people who happen to be local government officers and who happen to serve on local authorities at the same time.
The Bill does not proceed from a consideration of the real problems. It reflects the prejudice not only of the Under-Secretary of State and the Minister of State, but of those other members of the Government who are more vocal and who paint an even more lurid picture than those Ministers do.
I want to speak mainly about the provisions relating to housing. I sat through three and a half months of deliberations on the Housing Act 1988 as it passed through the House and came back from the House of Lords. I recall rising on Third Reading to say that the then Minister, the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave), knew—as did his civil servants and the Secretary of State that the Bill was irrelevant and would make no difference to any of our housing problems. I spoke again last week on a clause which made exactly the same point about this Bill. The 1988 Act has made no difference whatever to our housing problems. The Ministers know, as their Back Benchers, civil servants and all the experts know, that that Act has been a complete and utter flop. So what did the Government do? Having once legislated on the subject, instead of saying, "Perhaps we got that a bit wrong and should now look at it this way", they are piling on more legislation which is even more defective and which is adding to the problems created by their previous legislation. I hesitate to think where we shall end up. Bad legislation will probably be added to and added to again until ultimately we have a morass of appalling housing legislation.
What does this legislation actually do about the country's housing problems? Over the past 10 years the amount of investment in our housing stock, irrespective of tenure, has reached record low proportions. I grant that the Government have made some alterations in the way in which improvement grants are to be administered and that they have marginally improved the way in which the capital allocations to local authorities are to be

administered. I hope that my constituents will see some benefit from that because I am obviously concerned that there should be some benefit for areas such as Merseyside.
There is no strategy, no framework and no logical approach in the Bill to putting right the major problems of our aged housing, such as the problems that have been stored up because of the system-built techniques of the past. We have major problems of disrepair in our local authority stock because of historical difficulties over repairs, which were largely if not completely to do with resources. The Bill does nothing about the disrepair problem nor about the straitjacket of tenures which is almost unique in Europe and is not to the benefit of those in housing need.
The financial provisions which are supposed to help people are so unequal that tenants get stuck in a tenure type. Any pretence that there is choice in the system goes out of the window. The Government cry freedom, but choice in housing is circumscribed. There is no equality between tenures, nor even within a tenure type. Housing finance should have been reformed. Instead of going along that road, the Government are placing even greater penalties on council tenants. The inevitable consequence will be rent increases because the Government have to make part IV of the 1988 Act work. To do that they have to make council housing ever more unpopular. Unfortunately, that is what it is all about. They have made a mistake and now they have to make somebody pay for it.
What does the legislation do about providing for the homeless? The answer is that it does nothing. We can walk through any major city, not least the capital, any night of the week and see the appalling spectacle of young people sleeping in cardboard boxes under railway arches. Yet we are almost at the end of the 20th century, not in Victorian or Dickensian times.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that Third Reading is not an occasion to debate what might or ought to have been in the Bill. We are debating what is in the Bill.

Mr. Howarth: I am grateful for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have strayed, but I think that I have made the point effectively.
The Government have got themselves into a mess on housing. They have offered no solutions to the real problems. They have merely piled predjudice on existing prejudice. The Bill is cheap, shoddy and useless.

Mr. Tony Banks: Like the Secretary of State.

Mr. Howarth: As my hon. Friend says, it is like the Secretary of State. The Government will pay a sorry price not just for the legislation but for all that it represents and all that goes with it.

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: I welcome the Bill. Having listened to the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) one would think that everything was fine in the garden and that there was no need for legislation on the conduct of local authorities. Part I of the Bill has already had quite an effect on some local authorities in regard to representation on committees.
The hon. Member for Normanton told us that basically the Bill said that anything that local government did was wrong and anything that the Secretary of State did was right. If that were the case, we would have needed only a one-clause Bill. In fact, we have a Bill with 164 clauses. We believe in local authorities and in the structure of local government. We want local government to operate fairly under the law.
Some local authorities are deliberately excluding opposition parties from committees. That cannot be justified by anyone, and no one should attempt to justify it, whether it be a Tory or a Labour authority. I want reassurance from my hon. Friend the Minister on clause 15 and the duty of a local authority to allocate seats to political groups.
My hon. Friend may not know that since the county council election in May, Derbyshire county council still refuses to allow any Conservatives to sit on the police authority. I want an assurance from my hon. Friend that when the Bill becomes effective that will not be possible. A Labour-controlled county council should not be able to say that no Conservatives will serve on a police authority. That assurance is important for my constituents and for the people of Derbyshire.

Mr. Christopher Hawkins: I wish strongly to support what my hon. Friend says. It is a disgrace that a police authority does not represent all political parties and all the people. That is the function of the authority.

Mr. McLoughlin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It is important that everyone should have confidence in the operations of the police committee and the police authority.

Mr. O'Brien: In view of the comment by the hon. Member for High Peak (Mr. Hawkins), will the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. McLoughlin) confirm that the views of Tories and other parties can be represented through magistrates who serve on those committees as co-opted members?

Mr. McLoughlin: I am amazed by that intervention. The hon. Gentleman is seeking to justify that there should be no elected representatives of minority groups on a police authority. That is absolutely disgraceful. We are talking about elected members of a county council. The intervention by the hon. Member for Normanton portrays the attitude of the official Opposition. He tells us that the Opposition believe in the role of local government. Yet they are justifying the refusal of a local authority to allow minority group representation on a particular committee. I am amazed because I would have thought that there was common ground on that. Obviously there is not. I thought that it was a minor, uncontroversial point, but clearly it is not. Therefore, I am glad that I made it and I hope that I get reassurance later from my hon. Friend.
I also seek reassurance on schedule 1, page 147, line 29, which refers to national parks committees. Derbyshire county council appoints eight people to the Peak Park national planning board. Only one is a Conservative. I want an assurance that there will be greater sharing of the representation.

Mr. George Howarth: This is pathetic.

Mr. McLoughlin: The hon. Gentleman says that it is pathetic. May I point out that of the eight people

appointed by the county council, only one lives in the area of the national park? I do not think that that is a good way of having local representation on the planning board. Can the hon. Gentleman tell me of any other planning authority in the country where a person can serve on the planning authority without being a resident in the area that is covered by that authority?

Mr. Hawkins: rose—

Mr. McLoughlin: I shall give way to my hon. Friend because we share the same difficulties.

Mr. Hawkins: Again I wish strongly to support my hon. Friend. He has brought up a most important point that I have raised in the House several times. There are a number of national parks where there are very few residents. It is right that a national park is seen as a national asset and that people from outside the area of the park should be on the planning authority. The Peak district national park has a very large population, and it is the planning authority controlling people's day-to-day lives. It is the major planning authority in many areas of my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. McLoughlin). It is greatly resented that there are so few local representatives on that board.

Mr. McLoughlin: My hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Mr. Hawkins) explained his position on the representation on the board. We both share national park areas and we both know how important this issue is to our areas. I hope that when the Bill becomes an Act it will not be possible for such a small minority representation to be given to opposition parties, and that there will be a fairer distribution.
I do not disagree with everything that the Labour party is saying about local government. This is one area in which I would depart from my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson), because I agree with the Labour party about something that it has announced in one of its policy documents. The Labour party did quite well in the county council elections in May. The Labour party is so horrified about the antics which its councils get up to in local government that, understandably, it wants to abolish the county councils. I agree with it on that.

Mr. David Nicholson: I believe that what inspires those Opposition parties, who are hostile to county councils—I believe it is also true of the Liberals or whatever they call themselves—is that they would like to establish a structure of regional government. Will my hon. Friend tell me from which regional capital he would like his constituency to be governed?

Mr. McLoughlin: My hon. Friend tries to send me down an avenue which, I am sure, Madam Deputy Speaker, will cause you to call me to order. I do not support the setting up of regional councils, but I would like to see devolvement down to district councils. I believe that district councils are far better and far more accountable to their local areas.

Mr. James Couchman: Does my hon. Friend agree that a perfect model already exists in outer London boroughs—most of them, incidentally, Conservative controlled?

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. The hon. Gentlemen are now concerning themselves with matters that are not in the Bill.

Mr. McLoughlin: I am grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker, for drawing me into line. I was a little worried that we might get drawn down that particular road.
A number of points in part I of the Bill should really have received the almost total support of the House. It is with great regret I say that that they have not. I believe that the structure of local government, and local government operating under certain guidelines, is important for the future of local government. We do not need any lectures about the future of local government and its importance. I go along with the future, the structure and the importance of local government. I do not go along, however, with its abuse.
I was surprised when the hon. Member for Normanton rejected my idea that councils should sit in the evenings. He said that, if councils met in the evenings, the chief officers would not be at their desks the next day, because they would have to take time off in lieu. However, if the councils meet in the day time, those same chief officers will be away from their desks and not available to the public. Some district councils already meet in the evenings and some meet in the mornings. I do not see any difference in the kind of service that they provide to the public. More district councils and county councils meeting in the evenings would mean that many people could stand for local government election who are currently barred from doing so. It is a great shame that there is not a clause in the Bill which positively encourages that to happen.
I warmly welcome the Bill and hope that it gets a Third Reading.

Mr. John Battle: The Bill is entitled "Local Government and Housing Bill", but our debate on housing, as happened the last time round when we discussed what became the Housing Act 1988, has become marginalised and buried in the rest of the detail of the Bill. After embarking on the major debate on housing last week, we were interrupted by, admittedly, an important debate on dog registration. Just before that debate on dog registration, however, there was a brief debate on shared ownership in rural areas. I believe that the Secretary of State's comments then reveal how out of touch and far off the ground he really is. The Secretary of State was keen to emphasise the principle of shared housing. He said:
we should allow shared ownership housing in certain rural areas to be retained as low-cost housing for future generations of local people."—[Official Report, 14 June 1989; Vol. 154, c. 1032–33.]
He also agreed that we need a way to retain shared ownership housing as low-cost housing once the beneficiary has moved on.
In the Secretary of State's efforts to persuade us that the Government were making arrangements for the passing on of low-cost housing, he produced a sheet of sample calculations which he said would show a typical case. The only problem was that, in real terms, the typical case that he presented was based on a house price exchange value of £174,900, which can hardly be described as a low-cost house. Under that scheme, the new resident's 40 per cent. share would be at least £69,960. The Secretary of State has a fundamental problem. Committed as he is to market values, it is not easy to square basing everything on market

values with subsidising and supporting low-cost initiatives. There is an essential conflict between the market and, as at last the Secretary of State is beginning to acknowledge —under pressure from his Back Benchers in rural areas—the need to treat rural housing as a social policy in Britain. People need decent homes in which to live at prices that they can afford. I believe that that comment was echoed by the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson). It showed that the Secretary of State has no concept of how to square a theory of the free market with the need of people for housing.
My hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) said that here is another Housing Bill—for example, parts V, VI, VII and VIII and 59 clauses—that does not address the issues of homelessness, the absolute shortage of housing for families, house price inflation, and people's problems in having paying their mortgages. It does not improve the chances of people renting a council house, if they are not already in one, but rather it intends to ring-fence. The Minister said that that would strengthen local authority housing. The word "strengthen" should be replaced by the words "squeeze and strangle", because that will be the reality. We can see how that ring-fence account will, as we spelt out last week, include some housing benefit—the rebate payments too—and, that therefore, some of the poorer tenants will have to pay the rent of the poorest through the housing benefit system. Council rents will be forced up and people will be priced out of the right to rent. They will then have to move out of the expensive council housing and into the private deregulated sector in which the landlords have far more power as a result of the 1988 Act to gain repossession and then put up the rents to what the Secretary of State has referred to throughout as "market levels".
In the middle of the debate last week the Secretary of State had the effrontery to make under clause 71 a major statement. He introduced his capital value rents formula, which will again force up rents. He did not grant us the courtesy of a proper statement at the Dispatch Box and at the proper time; he tagged it on to his comments in response to clause 71. His message to council tenants was "Buy or get out, because you will not be able to afford to rent." The only option will be to move into the private rented sector. The Government have been exposed in their attempt to deny people the right to rent. People will not be allowed to rent; they will be priced out by the market. It may come as a surprise to Conservative Members that some people choose to live in council housing. Every week, people visit Opposition Members in an effort to move into council housing. Some of us remember council housing as a dream means of getting out of the appalling and highly priced private rented sector of the past into a decent and affordable home with an inside lavatory and bathroom.

Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo: It is not often that I have any kind words to say about my Labour-controlled Nottingham city council housing department, but in all fairness to it I must ask whether the hon. Gentleman is saying that a well-run local authority housing department, where there is proper and reasonable maintenance and all the other things that the hon. Gentleman would seek, with a housing revenue account that is in balance, not subsidised, like Nottingham's will be forced falsely and unnecessarily to raise its rents as a result of the Bill. The inquiries and the assurances that I have received show that that will not be the case and that the


formula exists only for those councils who, in some way or another, are trying to draw in subsidy in order to charge falsely low rents. Rents in Nottingham do not require that subsidy, so the council will not he forced unreasonably to raise its rents.

Mr. Battle: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. What he says is a remarkable contrast to those Conservative Members whom I have heard refer to council housing as evil empires. I welcome the hon. Gentleman's comments about Nottingham. He is willing to acknowledge and boast about the situation there. However, I advise him to re-read the Secretary of State's statement because he is introducing capital value rents. Four years ago the Secretary of State said that every council rent in Britain should be at least £35 a week. He has now produced a formula which will nudge rents in that direction.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. David Trippier): The hon. Gentleman should have listened more carefully to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo). It is clear that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was talking about a formula to be used in calculating the new housing subsidy which will play a major part in balancing the equation with regard to the ring-fencing of the housing revenue account. In the specific circumstance referred to by my hon. Friend, it is highly likely that rents will remain exactly the same. It is even possible that in his authority, or in some others, they will fall. Surely the hon. Gentleman will not use the scaremongering tactics that we are so used to from the Labour party to suggest that rents will increase substantially. He will look pretty stupid if the rent demands that go to tenants do not substantiate that suggestion.

Mr. Battle: In time the truth will out. We have heard the same on property price values, mortgages and private sector rents. The same arguments were put forward for the Housing Act 1988. It was said that private sector rents would not go up, but they are doing so. The Minister's colleagues in the Department of Social Security know that and they are watching them with interest.
The Minister may be able to stand at the Dispatch Box now and pledge that rents will not necessarily go up. We shall have to wait to see what happens, but since the Secretary of State said that he would base rents on capital values, what other option is there when the average value of property is rising? Conservative Members want to finish off council housing. That is the real agenda. The Secretary of State is on record as saying that councillors should not manage local authority housing.
We should reflect on the roots of council housing. Where did it come from in the first instance? My city of Leeds had the highest number of back-to-back houses-172,000. There were unique reasons for that, not least that the fields were sold off in strips for house building and houses were built along the river. The blocks were then connected and the midden block with the toilet facilities was connected to the drains of the local inns and pubs round about. In other words, corners were cut on sanitation. The result was typhoid and tuberculosis.
Then we had public health legislation which suggested that there should be public housing to give people space, light and sanitation. That was the real history of public housing. The private landlords failed to deliver and everybody suffered. What surprised the councillors—they

were not loony Left councillors at the turn of the century —was that the tuberculosis germs did not observe the city boundaries and remain in the poorer areas downtown, but rather moved up the hill on the wind. At that point they decided to introduce legislation to build council housing.
The Government are seeking to price out the public housing sector and send the tenants back to the landlords, weakening conditions and tenants' protections against eviction and repossession. We are entitled to ask why they are so determined to re-run history. Why are they so determined to put the clock back?
The Government have promised a major amendment on standards in the other place. We could not debate that amendment on Report, but a 10-point habitation standard was spelt out. Before the Minister tells us that we were asking for gold taps and the rest, let me say that housing standards were set in the 1930s and we need new standards now to take us into the next century.
The 1986 English house condition survey showed that there has been little improvement in disrepair in recent years. At best the situation is static. There are still well over 1 million unfit houses and houses in a serious state of disrepair. Our housing stock, whether private or public, should not be allowed to deteriorate.
The Minister might do worse than to look at a report published by the Royal Institute of British Architects which says that the Government's drive to get value for money and to achieve private sector funding
totally disregards achieving the required standard cost in use or long-term maintenance…The increase in the number of households has not met with a corresponding increase in house-building. An ever-increasing number of people are being forced into poorly-built or badly-converted accommodation.
We have a long way to go on home improvements before the Government adopt a system of standards. The standards that we set out in the other place should be welcomed and would go some way to tackling the backlog. It remains to be seen whether the Government are committed to improving housing or whether this is simply another tag on to a local government Bill.
The Government may be having second thoughts on the National Health Service, the poll tax and the water proposals. I urge the Government to think again on these proposals in the Local Government and Housing Bill. Some of us remember that in 1983 the Tory party's election manifesto said:
Our goal is to make Britain the best housed nation in Europe.
That rings hollow now, not only in the light of the Government's significant failure in Europe but their failure towards the nation's housing, witnessed by the hundreds of thousands of people in Britain who are homeless or likely to be homeless because they currently live in overcrowded conditions with no hope for the future.

Mr. Tony Marlow: I want to make a few brief remarks about a subject which was debated in this House last week, and which I think received as much if not more publicity than anything else that has been debated on this Bill and on which I believe the Government intend to introduce further amendments later on in another place—that is the subject of dogs.
For a long time I have favoured a registration scheme, but no longer.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I ask the hon. Gentleman to speak to the Bill, which has nothing to do with dogs.

Mr. Marlow: But, Madam Deputy Speaker, clause 138 states that
a charge may be imposed in respect of anything…which is done by any relevant authority.
That is the text to which I refer.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman may intend to amuse the House, but I insist that he keeps to the subject of the Bill.

Mr. Marlow: You put me in great difficulty, Madam Deputy Speaker. Can I perhaps try another text?

Madam Deputy Speaker: I think that you better had.

Mr. Marlow: Clause 7, on page 10 of the Bill, states:
Every appointment of a person to a paid office or employment…shall be made on merit.
One of the paid offices that would most merit being made by local authorities would be that of a dog warden. Any dog warden so appointed should be appointed on the basis of merit.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is prepared to amuse us with a very lively speech, but I am serious in suggesting to him that other right hon. and hon. Members wish to speak to the Bill, and he must do likewise.

Mr. Marlow: I hear what you say, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Briefly, I believe that my right hon. Friend is quite right in seeking to bring forward amendments at a later stage in another place, which he suggested the other day. There has been a lot of talk about registration on this subject, and I believe that the powers that my right hon. Friend is going to give to local government with regard to this particular nuisance will solve the problem that we are all seeking to solve. I believe that that is the right way to proceed. It gives powers to local people to insist that those powers are used, and it will at a later stage enable the country to be rid of a great nuisance which has been afflicting us and affecting us for a great deal of time. I believe that on this issue my right hon. Friend has got it right.

Mr. Tony Banks: I shall come straight to the point. I do not like the Bill. It is like the Secretary of State—brutal, graceless, and almost a complete waste of space. Typical of its kind, it is yet one further turn of the screw in what appears to my right hon. and hon. Friends and me to be the liquidation of local democracy and accountability.
The Bill is also an unholy mess. Any right hon. or hon. Member who sat through the Committee or Report stage will realise just how much of a mess it is. It is the legislative equivalent of a blunderbuss. The only coherence that seems to run through its clauses is one of unalloyed nastiness to local councillors, councils and council tenants. In its generality, the Bill will deprive tens of thousands of council officers of their civic rights. I suspect that that provision will be tested elsewhere, in the European Court of Human Rights. The Bill will also deprive a significant number of councillors of their ability either to earn a living or to remain councillors. It seeks to extend further into the

day-to-day running of local authorities the choking embrace of centralisation, giving ever more powers to the Secretary of State and the faceless grey gnomes of Marsham street.

Mr. Trippier: Withdraw!

Mr. Banks: I was trying to be complimentary.
I am still waiting for a clue from the Minister as to the political activities that will be off limits to council officers earning more than £13,500 per year. We do not even know how that figure will be calculated, and whether it will include allowances, bonuses or overtime.
The ban on political activities takes no heed of the work that council officers do in giving advice to elected councillors and to the public, and decisions about those activities will be left to the adjudication officer, who will have to exercise the judgment of Solomon. The House is entitled at least to a clue as to the matters that the adjudication officer will take into account when deciding whether or not a council officer's work places him in the category of being a political eunuch.
It is typical of the Government to set a cash limit democracy with a price tag of £13,500 or more. It is typical of a Government of free market spivs to understand much about money but nothing about values.
The Government say that they are taking this action with the backing of Conservative Members to end so-called abuses in local government, but their evidence is anecdotal. Even Widdicombe, after all the inquiries, could not come up with hard evidence of political abuse in respect of appointments. Much of the anecdotal evidence that Ministers trot out is largely culled from the pages of Right-wing tabloids written by grubby and mendacious hacks.
One appreciates how hypocritical the Bill is, coming as it does from a Government who cannot refrain from abusing power. I refer, for example, to political appointments to public bodies, which are full of Tory stooges these days. The great and the good have been replaced by the stooge, the hack and the lickspittle—all of whom subscribe to Tory values. Such people pack every body to which Ministers have the power to make appointments.
The phrase used by the Government is "Jobs for the boys in local government." Perhaps you, Madam Deputy Speaker, will pardon that sexist phrase. Perhaps it does not bother you, but it does bother me. Such an accusation defies logic. In terms of giving jobs to the boys, local government is like a bunch of political virgins by comparison with this Government of sybarites. When it comes to jobs for the boys and political abuse, no one can teach the Government anything. Nothing in local government remotely approaches the level of political abuse that the present Government practise in public life.
The Government demand a whistle-blower in the town hall. I hope that right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House—many Conservative Members have served in local government—agree that our local government system is remarkably free of corruption by comparison with those of other countries, and by comparison even with our own Civil Service. Yet there are to be no statutory whistle-blowers in Whitehall, where there would be a considerable amount of work for them to do—in respect of everything from the overpricing of Ministry of Defence


contracts to the Property Services Agency and the out and out corruption of the common agricultural policy. The hypocrisy of the Bill is of staggering proportions.
Ministers speak of the need for impartiality in council officers, but that comes from a Government who have done more than any other in living memory to politicise the Civil Service—to the point where the Government's own information officers protest about the way in which they are used to do party political dirty work on the instructions of Ministers and of No. 10 Downing street. One need only think of Bernard Ingham. Who would retain him once the present Government have gone? My right hon. Friend the next Prime Minister would be mad to retain Mr. Ingham, who has been behaving like a deputy Prime Minister for so long. In view of the things that information officers were getting up to over the Westland letter, how can Conservative Members talk of the abuse of political power in the town halls? How can they talk like that when we can point to their own terrible record?
Conservative Members have mentioned ratepayers' money being used for council newsletters and publicity campaigns. That is a bit much, coming from a Government who spend some £150 million a year of taxpayers' money on politically motivated, party-politically inspired campaigns under the guise of public information.
Finally, let me deal with the aspect of the Bill which will directly affect my people in Newham, especially council tenants. The combining of the rate fund subsidy, rate rebate subsidy and Housing Act 1980 subsidy places that single subsidy wholly within the control of the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State has tried to argue that the inconsistency between the rents of one authority and those of another was an overwhelming argument for them to be evened out. Despite what the Minister has said, we know what will happen. The level will rise rather than fall. I shall be the first to apologise to the Minister if that does not happen, but history points to rents going up rather than down.
There is a simple reason why one local authority should have lower rents than another. Some authorities, at the instigation of their residents, decided to build houses for rent at an early stage. That was a wise investment decision. They did not know that the Secretary of State would come along and expropriate, without compensation, their prudently acquired capital assets. I should like to see what Conservative Members would say if a Labour Government decided to expropriate private resources and assets without compensation. Indeed, I should very much like to see a Labour Government do precisely that.

Mr. Dave Nellist: Hear, hear.

Mr. Banks: I knew that my good friend the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) would be on my side, but I suspect that we should be in something of a minority as we are now.

Mr. Nellist: An honourable minority.

Mr. Banks: Honourable, indeed, but a minority none the less. One day I should like to be in the majority—one does not always want to lose gloriously.
Public housing was first built and let out for rent to supply a need that could not be met in the market place. Even in Victorian times, homes were needed for the working-class families of those who drove the trains,

worked the docks and built the sewers; yet London then, as now, was a high-demand area, so the philanthropists of that age built housing for low rents. Now nurses, cleaners, social workers and teachers cannot afford to buy property in London, and it seems that soon they will not be able to rent it either, because they will always be squeezed out of the market by richer people.
What has become of the Government's economic policy? Countless people are attracted to London by the prospect of work, thus creating a high-demand area, but those are the people least able to afford the higher rents or house prices produced by the Government's proposal to allow rents to reflect house prices—for that is what this proposal amounts to.
Council housing was meant to step in and break the force of the market—to ensure that people were allocated homes according to need rather than ability to pay. That was one of its essential objectives—to ensure that poverty in housing was not passed from one generation to another, and that the poverty of the parents did not mean that the children had to live in squalor, in overcrowded conditions without basic amenities. With this one proposal the Government are twisting the original pure aims of council housing—to house those in greatest need—into a grotesque reflection of that grotesque animal, the house purchase market. No one who has watched with horror the spiralling prices of the past two years—up to August last year, when it became less and less possible for anyone on a modest income to buy the smallest broom cupboard—which displaced people in the cheaper areas such as Newham could possibly wish this to happen to council rents.
The movement of rents towards capital values has an even more dangerous impact on areas such as my borough of Newham, where incomes are lower than the average. Housing benefit is received by 67 per cent. of council tenants in Newham, and 60 per cent. of those tenants are on full income support. The people of Newham suffered significant losses as a result of the changes in the social security regime in April 1988. There were 7,800 transitional payments and, as we all know, only certain categories were entitled to receive transitional protection.
The proposal to move rents towards the market place takes no account of the poverty trap being created and deepened by the significant increase in rents that is likely to ensue. It presupposes that tenants in high-demand areas are likely to be in work, with the benefit of wage increases. What about people on fixed occupational pensions? What about single parents dependent on a mixture of maintenance and low-paid work? What about the unemployed who want to take a job—any job—but find that they are worse off because rents are so high and wages so low? They might be willing themselves to take the risk of being worse off for a time, but can they risk that for their families?
Rent arrears are related purely to poverty and to the level of rents. Despite what we are told about local authorities not collecting their rents, in 1987–88 Newham collected more than 100 per cent. of its rent roll. Rent arrears dropped in that year by 5·6 per cent., but following the massive drop in incomes and the increase in rents that was forced through by the Government, rent arrears inevitably increased in Newham, as elsewhere in the country. In Newham the increase was 30 per cent. It is to the credit of the people of Newham that the increase in rent arrears—from 5·6 per cent. to 30 per cent.—was not


far worse, because the level of poverty to which the people of Newham have been reduced by the benefit changes is absolutely appalling.
Council housing had an honourable beginning. Among the Victorian philanthropists Octavia Hill was a person whom we might have expected the Victorian moralists of today to admire. It is sad to see that council housing has come to a sordid end, mauled by lesser men who do not understand what they are doing. If they did, their sins would be unforgivable.
The Bill is petty and mean minded. It has been put together by a megalomaniac whose only concern seems to be control of local government, without regard to individual merits or faults. I ask my local government colleagues to hang on. In two years' time they will be free from the clutches of this vicious, nasty, mean-minded Government because a Labour Government will set local government and local democracy free. I look forward to the day when I shall greet them from the Government Benches where I shall hold a place of honour, although unfortunately I shall probably still be at the back.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: I should like to comment on what was said by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) towards the end of his speech. It contained few facts and it is a great pity that he grievously misquoted a great figure. Miss Octavia Hill opposed the building of council houses. She said that London county council was wrong to build council housing—that there were other ways of providing housing for people. She believed that housing associations ought to do it. If the hon. Gentleman had ever bothered to read her very interesting and important writings, or the biography written by her nephew, he would know that she said that the classic mistake was to mix up the collection of rents and the collection of votes. It is an outrage that the hon Gentleman has had the cheek to misrepresent that great lady.

Mr. Tony Banks: The hon. Gentleman is quoting her sister.

Mr. Hughes: I shall not even try to answer the hon. Gentleman because I want to make some serious points.
My experience in local government, and of serving on the Standing Committee that considered the Bill, has led me to believe that the Labour party collectively does not understand that there is an important difference between councillors and officers of the council. The Labour party has sought to smudge the dividing line in all the amendments that they have tabled and in all the arguments that they have used. The Opposition have proved beyond any shadow of doubt that it is they who have poisoned the well and made it necessary for the Government to introduce this measure.
It is not surprising that some of the clauses in a 164-clause Bill have not been discussed. As far as I can remember, clause 145, which came out of Committee as clause 155, has not been discussed at all. That is the clause which relates to race relations and the code of practice.
I congratulate the Government on producing clause 155 which will do so much to widen the scope of the Commission for Racial Equality and the Department of

the Environment in laying down codes of practice. I apologise if some hon. Members have heard my arguments before but I think that they bear repeating, particularly in the light of some of the remarks in the Chamber during the early hours of this morning.
I do not believe that we know the size of the problem of racial abuse. Some tenants who face harassment report it only when it gets out of hand. Clause 155 will enable a much clearer picture to be produced. The report published last year by the Commission for Racial Equality, entitled "Living in Terror", states that it is not enough to have a vague notion of certain estates where harassment is a problem. When a code of practice has been produced, authorities will need to focus more clearly on the estates where it is happening and ascertain clearly when and where incidents occur. Local authorities should work out a plan of action. They should talk to their tenants, find out where the abuse is coming from and why it happens and decide what to do about it.
I will quote the London borough of Newham, which the hon. Member for Newham, North-West knows much more about and which has been mentioned several times in connection with these matters. Every hour there is an abuse of a black household, and one in four black residents in Newham faces abuse over a 12-month period.
Abuse is not restricted to inner London or to the London borough of Newham. Far too many cases of racial abuse in the London borough of Harrow are reported to me. The problem needs to be tackled, and I am genuinely delighted that the Government have produced clause 155, which will enable them to go further than they could last year. Last year, during the passage of the Housing Bill —now the Housing Act 1988—the Government wanted to go further but were restricted by the long title of the Bill. The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave), who was then the housing Minister, said in Committee:
I am signalling that the Government are considering the possibility—positively, we shall want to cover all housing…I give a commitment today…to put the CRE in a position to produce a code with all the implications referred to by my hon. Friend." —[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 15 March 1988; c. 1626.]
The Minister was referring to me. I am very grateful to the Government for sticking to their word.
I recognise that it is not easy to put together a code of practice that will work. It is not easy to find out the source of the serious racial abuse to which I have alluded. It is not easy to work out the best solution. Now we have started a process whereby we can start looking seriously at these things and make sure that we do something to help the many black and Asian people who suffer abuse daily on housing estates, in private housing and in owner-occupied property.
Secondly, I wish to discuss the housing revenue changes which seek to prevent councils using ratepayers' or community charge payers' money to underwrite rent arrears or to subsidise artificially low rents. The Labour party has suggested that we are overrating the problem and that it is not happening. I should like to prove that the Bill is necessary and that something has to be done by alluding to what was said by the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) in the Standing Committee considering the Local Government and Housing Bill.
In the cities it is just not Labour councils that make rate fund contributions"—
So do


Kensington and Chelsea, Westminster, Harrow, Barnet" —[Official Report, Standing Committtee G, 18 April 1989; c. 936.]
The hon. Gentleman was challenged about this, but stuck to his guns.
Let us look at the facts behind the hon. Gentleman's allegations. He said that Kensington and Chelsea makes a rate fund contribution. That is not true. Figures produced by the Department of the Environment show a blank in this area; that council makes no rate fund contribution.
The hon. Gentleman sought to put Barnet and Harrow in the same league as Labour councils, which I shall mention in a moment. In Committee, the hon. Gentleman was told that Barnet made a £20,000 rate fund contribution. What we did not know at the time was that Harrow's contribution was much bigger—£24,000, hardly a significant sum.

Mr. O'Brien: What about Westminster?

Mr. Hughes: Granted, Westminster made a contribution of more than £2 million. I do not comment on Westminster council; it seems to comment on its own problems enough—

Mr. O'Brien: It is a Tory council.

Mr. Hughes: So it is alleged.
I want to talk about councils which are milking the system—councils in London which are misusing their power in two ways. Let us examine some examples of the budgeted rate fund contributions to the housing revenue account in 1989–90. Camden contributed £39 million, Hackney, £27 million, Islington, £46 million, Lambeth, £32 million, Southwark, £23 million and SLD-controlled Tower Hamlets, £24 million. Brent council contributed £9 million.
Alongside some of these rate fund contributions goes the inability, in some cases, to collect rate arrears. Southwark is the winner in this league, with arrears of £19 million. How can these people say that they seek to make a genuine contribution to good housing in their areas when they run their housing revenue account so badly and milk the ratepayers for a problem that does no good for the provision of decent housing?
In the context of the combination of the housing parts of the Bill with those which implement the Widdicombe report, it is interesting to consider the case of the vice-chairman of Lambeth's housing committee, Miss Josie Byrne. In her case, what the hon. Member for Newham, North-West describes as the gutter press has done a good job. On 8 June she was reported as owing £2,000 in rent arrears, having claimed £20,000 in expenses as a councillor during that year. Magically, within days of the report, she discovered that she could repay those arrears. The Today newspaper did a good job in exposing this classic example of the Labour party's misuse of its position to run council housing empires which can be described—I have done so before—as evil.
The Bill will ensure that every council concentrates on running council housing well and on making a contribution to good housing, so that housing will not be merely a political toy of the Labour party.
I welcome the Bill.

Mr. David Winnick: I agree with the first part of the remarks made by the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes). He deplored racial abuse and attacks. I and all my right hon. and hon. Friends agree with that. The sort of poisonous rubbish that was heard in an outburst last night from the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Janman) disappointed a number of Conservative Members—I do not know whether a majority—and outrages all Opposition Members. We on the Labour Benches are wholly opposed to racism in all its manifestations. Whether that stance is electorally popular at any given moment makes no difference. We have made our principles clear and we shall stand by them all our lives, in the House and outside it.
This is in essence a thoroughly bad Bill which again shows the malice which the Government feel towards large sections of the community, such as council tenants. One of the Bill's main purposes is greatly to increase council rents. That is the purpose behind the ring-fencing of the housing revenue account. The Secretary of State's statement last week again showed how right we were when we talked of large rent increases to come. They will not come all at once. They will come over a period, but there will be substantial rent increases because the objective of the Government so far as possible is to bring council rents to the level of market rents in the privately rented sector.
Another aim of the Bill is substantially to reduce the existing public sector, which has been reduced substantially already. Normally when we say that Conservative Members laugh and say that that is not their aim. I remind the House of what the Secretary of State said on Second Reading, when responding to an intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks):
First, I hope that the hon. Gentleman has advised such people that they should have exercised the right to buy and that they can still do so, thereby avoiding the trap of paying rent for a lifetime and ending up owning nothing".—[Official Report, 14 February 1989; Vol. 147, c. 175.]
In other words, the right hon. Gentleman wants a substantial reduction in council dwellings arid no replacement by new building. In my borough there has been no new council house building for 10 years, and the same applies to most parts of the country.
Council tenants are to be punished because they wish to remain in that position. The Government say in effect to them, "If you do not like what we are doing, and if you do not like substantial rent increases, the remedy is in your hands. Buy the dwelling." Labour Members say that there will always remain a need for a sizeable public rented sector. There will always be a large number of people—a minority, but a large number nevertheless—who will not be in a position to buy their dwellings, and they have every right to decent accommodation. That can come only from the public sector and genuine housing associations.
Another aspect of the Bill which we find offensive is the part of the ring-fencing of the housing revenue accounts which is designed to ensure that housing benefits, rebates, for poorer council tenants come from the higher rents of other council tenants. The poorer elements will subsidise the even poorer ones, and that is totally offensive to us. The relief of poverty should come of course from central Government. Why should some council tenants pay much higher rents to ensure that those who are less well off are assisted by those higher rents?
The Government refuse to recognise that there remains an acute housing shortage. If it is said that that is only propa ganda on the part of Labour Members, consider what was said on Second Reading by the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson), who also spoke today. He said:
Last Saturday, half my surgery cases had come to me because of housing problems. That was the highest proportion I had encountered in my 18 months as a Member of Parliament. I am finding that it is increasingly difficult to accommodate the housing needs of my constituents—for example, young people, perhaps with a baby, who are living with their parents."[Official Report, 14 February 1989; Vol. 147, c. 220.]
I think I see the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Irving) nodding in agreement with that sentiment. At my surgeries, on the first and last Saturdays each month, the majority of my constituents who come to see me do so over housing problems. The majority of letters that I receive from my constituents are about housing matters. That shows that this is not Labour propaganda or mischief-making. As I said, many people are desperately in need of housing, but as a result of Government policy, with no new council houses being built, we are witnessing a substantial decrease in the public rented sector.
Our fellow citizens in acute housing need are being penalised. That is why we are so opposed to the Government's housing policy. We make no apology for the fact that we believe that we have a duty and responsibility to voice the concern and anger of our constituents with housing difficulties who, as I have said at other times, have as much right to decent accommodation as any hon. Member. If they cannot buy a home because they are on small incomes, why should they be unable to obtain adequate rented accommodation? Why should they be punished?
I am also totally opposed to discrimination against those people employed in local government who, because they earn £13,500 or more, will no longer have the right to be elected to another local authority. That undermines civil liberties. I accept that there can be abuse from time to time; there is no aspect of life, I suppose, in which abuse does not sometimes occur. However, that is no reason why everyone who falls into that earnings bracket should be penalised. I do not wish to defend the indefensible, and if abuse occurs on either side it is wrong. However, I do not want to take away people's democratic rights. As I said only last week, one of the main functions of the House is to defend people's civil liberties.
From time to time Conservative Members make remarks about civil liberties. However, I doubt whether a single Tory Member will tonight rebel against the taking away of the democratic rights of large numbers of people. Perhaps it is wrong to suggest that this would happen to large numbers of people, but the figure does not matter. The important point is that they will no longer be entitled to exercise their democratic right because they happen to work in local government. That is basically wrong. This policy change comes from a Government who have given jobs to all their sympathisers and supporters up and down the country. In the past 10 years, people have been appointed merely because they are members of the Conservative party or closely connected with it.
The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup—I am sure that Government Members know to whom I am referring—recently said that the way in which the

Government conducts their press office is corrupt. How right he is. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West referred to the role of Mr. Ingham. I doubt whether there has ever been a Government chief press officer who has so abused his position, and with the direct encouragement of the Prime Minister.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: The House is often given the impression that the only twin tracking which this Bill seeks to eliminate is the kind of outrageous abuse seen in some London boroughs and, occasionally, in Liverpool and one or two other places, but I believe that the abuse is more widespread. In the last county council elections two employees of Nottingham city council were successful. I wish them good luck in their Labour seats on the county council. Will the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) comment on the fact that the Labour city council has given consent not just for normal leave to attend to their duties at county hall, but has said that they can have as much time off as they like to carry out whatever length of duties on however many committees of the county council? That permission was granted on the ground that the city would be proud for them to do so. Surely that cannot possibly be right.

Mr. Winnick: Even if the hon. Gentleman were right—

Mr. Martlew: I was a county councillor for 15 years and I was given as much time off as I liked to carry out my duties, which included two years as chairman of the county council. I worked for a company in the private sector.

Mr. Winnick: My hon. Friend's intervention effectively answers the point raised by the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo). My hon. Friend also implied that those in the public sector should not be given worse treatment than those in the private sector. Even if the hon. Member for Nottingham, South were right, there is no reason to take away everyone else's political rights because of alleged abuse. There is no justification for that.
The Bill helps to explain the deep feeling of revulsion that was demonstrated in last Thursday's vote. Many people believe that the Government have abused their office and that they are completely out of touch with the lives of millions of ordinary people and with the matters that affect them—council rents, the poll tax and many other measures. If Conservative Members do not understand that deep feeling of revulsion, which has brought about such great Labour success in the European elections, I suggest that they study the Bill and much of the other legislation passed in recent years, because it explains only too well why people have come to the conclusion that enough is enough.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: I was somewhat surprised when the Minister said that one of the main objectives of the Bill was to strengthen local government. He used that phrase several times. Either he does not understand what "strength" means because he has the wrong dictionary, or he is taking too much note of the current political advisers at the Department of the Environment. The Government are pushing through legislation which curtails the activities of local government and local government employees, but they are doing the opposite with their own Departments.


More political appointees are working in Government Departments than ever before, dealing with matters such as water privatisation and the regulations that will result from the Bill. No other Government have done this to such as extent. We all know the amount of money that the Government are spending on publicising their programmes under the vague notion of public information. Yet when a local authority does the same such information immediately becomes political.
This is another Bill in a long chain of legislation to shackle local government. Ever since they were elected in 1979, the Government have said that they would give freedom to local government, but all that they have done has been to put shackles on local government with legislation such as this and with financial restrictions. The Minister fails to recognise that democracy and freedom in local government are important to many who serve in local government as officers and to local councillors, whether Conservative, SLD or Labour. The Government should recognise the importance of local government.
Because of the way the Bill has been timetabled, last week we had only two days to debate Report stage. It would have been better to have three days, because we could then have had a shorter Third Reading debate. The difficulty with the debate on Third Reading is that we cannot refer to the amendments, whether Government or Opposition, we had insufficient time to debate last week. We can refer only to the Bill as it stands.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) said last week that the debate on some important issues was a sham because there was not sufficient time to discuss them. We all know that on Wednesday evening a major debate on the dog registration scheme took place in the early hours of the morning. I hope that the other place will reconsider that issue, because the Government got it wrong. Many other items put into the Bill by amendments and new clauses forced through by the Government have not been properly debated.
My hon. Friends have already mentioned the problems of ring-fencing. The main purpose of some aspects of the Bill is to force people either to buy their council homes or to opt out and thus enhance the private rented sector. Another purpose is to encourage the growing business expansion scheme. While the Bill might, in certain areas, deal with certain problems, it is nevertheless the wrong way to try to solve the housing problems. Rather than giving tax incentives, the Government should make the necessary funding available to deal with the problems.
The current difficulties in both the public and private housing sectors will not be solved by the Bill. The Government are not prepared to allocate sufficient funds to deal with the problems. We are arguing for funds not just for the public sector, but also for the private sector, which suffers from the same problems. The unavailability of land has led to a deterioration of housing standards. The Minister has only to look around his constituency and the neighbouring constituencies in north-east Lancashire, such as mine, to appreciate the problems of decline in the private sector. People cannot improve their homes because their value is so low that they cannot obtain loans. The hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) mentioned defective housing. There are problems with Spooner houses in my area. They are of a wooden frame structure —not all that old—and because of problems with the ties the gable ends need to be rebuilt. Those who bought their council houses in good faith under the right to buy cannot

afford to repair them. Building societies will not lend them any additional money because of the low value of their houses. I hope that the Minister will seriously take on board the problems with housing in north-east Lancashire.
I wish briefly to discuss part I of the Bill and the implications of Widdicombe. They have rightly been dealt with already at some length because the Bill goes far beyond what is required to deal with the minor problem of political involvement by certain key officers. The Bill is a serious erosion of people's rights and civil liberties and of democracy. It moves in the wrong direction and the Government are treading a dangerous path. The arbitrary figure of £13,500 is nonsense and the Government should think again.
Even more important, the Bill gives yet further powers to the Secretary of State to act through regulations. We have been given no idea what will be contained in those regulations, especially the provisions relating to council employees. Will canvassing be forbidden? Will they be prevented from putting up election posters? It is wrong that, time and again, half-baked legislation is pushed through the House without the Government providing crucial information. When the Government introduce regulations they do not allow sufficient time for debate. Of course, they do not want them to be debated, but if they have to be debated they make sure that that happens at a time when they will not receive any publicity. Not only do the Government not believe in local government democracy—they do not really believe in parliamentary democracy.
The Association of District Councils has expressed concern about economic development and discretionary expenditure by local authorities, which is covered in part III. It says:
The Association wishes to ensure that restrictions to be included in Regulation are kept to a minimum and do not inhibit sensible, constructive and imaginative initiatives.
Again, the association is referring to proposals that will be introduced through regulations, and which are not specified at this stage. The association makes the point that the proposal could result in around 40 per cent. of the 333 non-metropolitan district councils being prevented from giving crucial help to start-ups of small and medium businesses, as they do at present.
Another crucial concern is the companies owned by local authorities and run by local authorities. The Minister is well aware of what I believe is valuable work carried out with Lancashire Enterprise. Many aspects of part III give rise to serious concern about whether the local authorities will be able to continue to provide money and to do all that they wish for such developments.
The Minister for Local Government spoke of the Bill "strengthening" local government. I believe that it will weaken the powers of local government. It could be his swansong as a Minister at the Department of the Environment. Year after year, we have had Bills on housing or local government. Every year, when the Government come back with the next Bill, a different Minister comes forward. Some Ministers have gone sideways, some have gone upwards and some have just gone. Let us hope that whether he goes upwards or not, the present Minister will go and that the Minister who takes his place will look at local government in a more positive and constructive manner.

Mr. Dave Nellist: In the past 10 years, a decade of this Government, we have had 50 Bills on local government. Like the others, this Bill does nothing to widen genuine local democracy and local choice for working people. The twin areas of greatest concern in the Bill are the proposals leading to further substantial rent increases for tenants and the draconian restrictions, about which my hon. Friends have spoken, on the freedom of council workers to participate in political activity. We understand that about 70,000 council workers will be affected, but we do not yet know. The regulations to enact that aspect of the Bill will, undoubtedly, come some months hence in the dead of night. We shall have an hour and a hairs debate, as we had a couple of weeks ago when we discussed 96 pages of poll tax regulations.
The hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) intervened when my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) was speaking, again along the theme of so-called jobs for the boys. He made unsubstantiated allegations about councils in London and the council in Liverpool. He was on very thin ice. He supports a Government half of whose supporters are not just Members of Parliament, but have one, two or 10 other jobs, who often pick up thousands of pounds a year for each of those jobs and for whom Members' wages become pocket money. In the last Parliament, the former right hon. and learned Member for Hexham, Mr. Geoffrey Rippon, was a Member of Parliament, a Queen's counsel and a director or chairman of 45 companies. I will never know how he ever had time to come into this Chamber. The voting record of many of those Tory Members is 10 per cent., 12 per cent. or 15 per cent. In the words of the good book, the hon. Member for Nottingham, South should take the beam out of his own eye before worrying about the mote in somebody else's eye. When it comes to twin tracking, Tory Members in this Tory Government have got it down to a fine art.
We do not know whether exactly 70,000 council workers will be affected, but we understand that it is those who are at present working for local authorities who will be prevented from holding office in political parties, from canvassing at elections—and we can understand that after Sunday's Euro results—or even from commenting publicly on matters of party political controversy, including through letters to newspapers. We can imagine the scenario when a council worker, just as the member of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament in Sutton Coldfield some years ago, has a knock at the door from two Special Branch officers because of a letter written to a local newspaper. That is what the Bill will introduce.
As drafted, the Bill gives the Secretary of State—a single individual—the power to prevent 70,000 people in this country from exercising their democratic rights. The Bill is fundamentally anti-democratic. It will not only apply to those people who earn more than £13,500 per year —incidentally, we understand that that figure will be frozen for the future so that more and more people will be caught year after year—it will also apply to many lower-paid council workers who give advice to the council or to its committees or who talk to the media.
The Government are taking the road of Stalin. While ostensibly criticising the lack of democracy in China, Cuba and eastern Europe, they are taking precisely the same powers politically to determine the opinions that this

country's working people can hold or, if they do not hold opinions favoured by the Government, the jobs that they are allowed to hold.
I turn now to the clauses relating to housing. The Bill is called a housing Bill, but it does nothing for the housing crisis that has developed in the past 10 years. There has been a 17 per cent. fall in the completion of new houses over that period from 244,000 down to 202,000. Local authorities have a 75 per cent. fall in their completions. Furthermore, at today's prices, local authorities have seen their investment budgets cut from £5,000 million in 1978–79 to £1,000 million in 1988–89. One million council houses have been sold, but over the period 1983 to 1987 the waiting list for those council houses grew by 70 per cent. from 0·75 million to 1·25 million people. Yet this Bill does nothing to redress the problems either of the people who want a house or of those who want their home repaired, improved or modified in some way.
Shelter estimates that 150,000 single young people are homeless in this country. In central London, where this Parliament is situated, over 40,000 young people sleep rough. That is a topic to which I intend to return on an Adjournment debate when I shall refer also to the Vagrancy Act 1824.
Like the Housing Act 1988, this Bill does not mention homelessness, but it will cause it—[Interruption.] I am doing my best to ensure that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, can hear what I am saying even if Tory Members are patently not interested in the homelessness of young people or of any other age group, especially the Minister who seems to have much better things to do than to listen to a speech about homelessness. Perhaps I could have his attention for a moment or two.
Part VI will cause homelessness. The housing finance sections of last year's Housing Act did nothing to help. That legislation was an enabling Act. In my six years in this madhouse, I have become less and less worried about enabling Acts and I can see more and more merit in giving a future Labour Secretary of State for Industry an "Industry Bill" to give him the power to nationalise companies and then, at 10 o'clock at night, night after night, I can see no problem in bringing forward the names of the companies that will be taken into public ownership. I have learnt from Bills such as this that enabling legislation gives Ministers powers which are then enacted in future orders.
As my hon. Friends have said, part VI deals with the ring-fencing of housing revenue accounts and receipts from council housing rents to stop cross-subsidisation with the general rate account. In 1987–88, £122 million nationally went from rents into the general rates account and £382 million went in the other direction, from councils' general rate fund accounts towards keeping down rents. I am quite happy for the Government to bring in a law to stop Tory councils from making profits out of council tenants and to stop them from transferring profits from rents into the general rate accounts.
The Government have not, of course, given the major reason why rent and housing revenue accounts have been affected and why rents have doubled in the past few years. The reason is the Government's cut in rent subsidies.
The hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes), whose attention I am seeking to gain, attacked cross-subsidisation and said that it represented bad running of the housing account and that it was the equivalent of milking the ratepayers.
You have been here longer than I have, Madam Deputy Speaker. You can remember that prior to this Government every Government accepted the general premise that support of the poorer sections of the community was a charge on national Governments, not on individual local authorities. It was central Government that had to bear the burden. That premise was established by the battles of councils such as Poplar, and tested in later years by Clay Cross and Liverpool.
The Bill will force councils to fund rent rebates from housing revenue accounts. In Coventry that means that two thirds of council tenants who get housing benefit will have that funded by the one third who do not get housing benefit. That will mean massive rent rises in Coventry and for 5 million council tenants nationally. Rents will rocket to such an extent that the Government's true aim in the Bill will come about and council tenants will be forced to try to buy their homes so that they may get public subsidy —that is, mortgage interest tax relief, which amounts to £5·5 billion nationally, or they will have to accept that their homes be sold to another landlord.
This is where all the legislation starts to be tied together. The Housing Act 1988, which brought in so-called tenants' choice, was extended by the Rent Office (Additional Functions) Order 1989, laid in February and debated on 21 March. It will take effect when part VI of the Bill gets Royal Assent. Part VI will force tenants to consider selling their houses to another landlord, probably a private landlord. When they do so, they will lose the protection of council rents. Their rents will become market rents. If the market rents are different from what the council's rent officer says that the council is allowed to pay, they will lose housing benefit.
I want to give a few examples. Recently we have had 300 cases in Coventry, some of them in my constituency. For a first-floor flat in Hugh road the asking rent is £35 and the market rent assessed by the council rent officer is £23. For a first-floor rear room in North street, just outside my constituency, the asking rent is £51·96 and the assessed market rent is £31. For board and lodging accommodation in Warwick road, in the constituency of the junior Education Minister, the hon. Member for Coventry, South-West (Mr. Butcher), the asking rent is £100·42 and the assessed market rent is £60.
What the 1988 Act, the rent offices order and this Bill, taken together, mean is that my council, in the last example, where the asking rent is £100·42, can claim 97 per cent. of the housing benefit from the Government on the £60 of assessed rent for which it pays housing benefit. It can claim nothing on the £40·42 of the asking rent which is above the assessed rent. The council has two choices. If it does not pay the person claiming for private accommodation the extra money, the result will be that the person will be made homeless. Let us not forget clause 138, as it was when the Bill went into Committee; it discharges all local authorities from having any duty to provide housing. People will be made homeless by the provision. The council's alternative is to pay the extra housing benefit and get nothing from the Government. What will the Minister do? What will his gaffer, who is sitting next to him, do? He will rate-cap Coventry. Coventry would be going outside the regulations. It would be paying housing benefit that the legislation says it should not pay.
I have gone into some detail on the examples because the matter has not been referred to so far in the debate. Hundreds of people in Coventry and tens of thousands

nationally could be made homeless because of part VI of the Bill. Councils will not want to risk being rate-capped by the Secretary of State. The Bill does not provide for the building of more houses or for the release of houses for people to rent. It does nothing about the appalling and tragic waste of life on building sites. It is not about housing. It is about further privatisation, shoving up rents and removing the democratic rights of council workers. It is a thieves' charter. The Secretary of State is stealing the democratic rights of 70,000 council workers, and he is stealing too the housing benefit and the very accommodation of tens of thousands of tenants in council and private sector housing. The House should treat the Bill with the contempt that it deserves by kicking it out on Third Reading.

Mr. David Blunkett: In the early hours of last Thursday I thought that the longest day had become 14 June, but as today's debate has worn on I realise that this is really the longest day of the year. Coverage of the Bill by the media last week concentrated on dog registration. Much as I have a commitment to that subject and care deeply about it, I hope that the coverage of today's proceedings by the media tomorrow, especially the BBC, which did not cover the debate last Tuesday at all in "Yesterday in Parliament", will acknowledge that what is happening to people's democratic and civil rights, to economic and industrial investment in companies, to the capital investment in our infrastructure and to rents and housing, have some importance even if those who frequent the portals of the Palace of Westminster do not always feel that those matters impinge on them immediately. One day some of those issues will catch them up.
The Minister has an ironic sense of humour which I did not know he had until we were in Committee and he started cracking little jokes. On 28 February, he said:
We are introducing the Bill because of our commitment to democracy.
In the same debate, he said:
I am committed to local government".—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 28 February 1989; c. 95.]
In his cheeky little way, he said that again tonight—that he supports local government. Like Dracula offering a blood transfusion, he offers local government a quick way out of what was previously accepted by all parties as local democracy. The purpose of the Bill is clearly to undermine our commitment over generations to the kind of local political democratic system that people have respected.
When the Bill was first introduced, it was described as the 50th Bill dealing with one or more aspects of local government. The Government boasted that it would be their last major local government Bill. I can promise the House that local government is not dead and that it will fight back against the Bill, as it has fought every other major measure introduced by the Government. There is life there, and we shall support our colleagues in local government in retaining and maintaining their commitment to their local electorate.
Only one thread unites the disparate and miscellaneous elements—albeit they are important—encapsulated in the Bill. That is the Government's obsession with replacing representative political democracy with the laws of the market place. The Government are intent on market forces dominating all our lives. That is not the free market, but


a distorted and specially manipulated market that will ensure that the Government's values and ideology are implemented in place of those decided by local people for local people. That is why we are opposing a whole range of measures in three major areas.
First, there is the restriction on basic civil democratic rights. The Government believe that we can have impartiality only if people hide their true political feelings. We believe that independence and impartiality can never be achieved by suppressing the expression of honest political opinions. Democracy can never be safeguarded by undermining basic democratic rights. If, as we said last week, those rights have to be sustained by appeal to the institutions of Europe, people will have to take that road in order to secure, as was described in the House on Monday night, the freedoms that the Government are only too prepared to take away.
It is obvious that anyone who seeks to take away the democratic rights of more than 130,000 people—the rights to speak or to canvas on behalf of a political party—cannot believe in democracy. The Government cannot take away existing rights and replace them with restrictions and at the same time claim that they believe in democracy. That is simply not possible. [Interruption.] I understand why those Conservative Members who are braying believe in doing that. If one does not believe in representative political democracy, and if the laws of the market place and the value of one's bank balance are more important than people obtaining their will through the ballot box, one will feel contempt for those institutions and practices which implement that democracy. That is why Conservative Members jeer and show contempt for such rights.
It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Local Government and Housing Bill and the Ways and Means Motions may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Maclean.]

Local Government and Housing Bill

Question again proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

Mr. Gummer: Is it democratic for the chief executive of a local authority, who advises all parts of a local council and who is duty bound to give impartial advice to all members of that authority, also to be chairman of the local Labour party?

Mr. Blunkett: The Opposition made it clear in new clauses 2, 3 and 4 that we were in favour of a code of practice which differentiated between, first, the restrictions that should be imposed on senior council officers standing for other authorities—what is generally known as twin-tracking—as we made clear again tonight, and, secondly, how people should maintain probity and sensibility in undertaking their tasks outside their working life in pursuing their democratic rights. We said that such a code of practice should be tried for one year.
Many of us would consider it inappropriate for a chief executive to hold a high-profile political position in a political party, but we would not seek to legislate to

remove the rights of 130,000 people in order to prevent that happening. We do not believe in dealing with the worries about the few by removing the rights of the many. That is what we are talking about. [Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) must be heard.

Mr. Blunkett: There are some advantages in not being able to see the distorted faces of the Ministers.
It is because we believe that in a democracy there is nothing more fundamental than the right to express a view openly that we are putting forward our view that the Bill is unacceptable. What could be worse than someone asking a fellow member of the council to put a poster in a window, knock on a door or write a letter, only to be told that it is more than his job is worth and that he will be sacked for exercising his democratic right?
The vindictiveness expressed against local authority officers applies equally to councillors. The only suggestion as to how local councillors should carry out their duties under the new regulations is that they should have more evening meetings. Some Conservative Members may have carried out their duties as councillors effectively and understood that, in order to be in touch with their electorate, to have surgeries and to take part in their own political party, they should have evening meetings, while running cities, counties and boroughs during the day. Councillors should be given time off to do that, and they should be properly remunerated—not the £51,000 per year that the chairman of the Yorkshire water authority reaps, nor the £57,000 that the chairman of the London residuary body reaps, but a small and reasonable remuneration to ensure that they can do their job.
We see the same restrictions and market forces implied in respect of economic development, joint companies and capital investment. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) for his comments, but he must not be under any illusions. Last week's Government amendments leave very much in the balance joint partnership ventures, economic regeneration and investment in the future. Local authorities will not easily be able to enter into partnerships with the private sector, and voluntary bodies are under threat. The arts lobby is very concerned that the very act of being associated with and receiving investment from local authorities will bring it and the local authorities within the ambit of the Bill's restrictions.
The Bill contains many pernicious provisions, but that which outstrips all the others is the Government's attack on the public rented sector. In Committee, the contribution made by the Minister—I was intrigued to discover that he is a warm-blooded being after all—was to inform right hon. and hon. Members that he did not need central heating because he could wear a woolly vest. That was the Minister's contribution to the issue of public sector housing.
Tonight we have debated the proposition that if market forces do not achieve Government ends, they should be manipulated until they do. The cost of housing in a particular district and the average value of council sales, bearing in mind that the properties being sold are the most expensive, will be interpreted in fixing rents from the centre. The Government will determine rents, and when they have done that they will determine subsidy. When income from rents goes into surplus and the local


authority makes a profit, that money must be used to meet the cost of paying housing benefits for other council tenants. The poor will be made to pay for the very poor. Private sector tenants and owner-occupiers enjoy subsidy and tax relief for which we all pay, but local authority tenants will be subsidised by their neighbours and the people on the street.
That twisted logic, which The Times described on 3 February as social engineering, will ensure that in high-cost areas rents will increase still further. By increasing rents and, as the Secretary of State described it last week, bringing them in line with the market, the Government will contribute to higher house prices as well. People seeking housing will not be able to afford to rent or to buy. If they are just above the poverty line they will pay full rent, but if they obtain a mortgage they will be hit by the Chancellor's high interest rates. Young people will be hit whichever way they turn. If that is social engineering with the aim of pushing people out of the south-east, the electorate will have none of it.
We want to see a return to affordable, attainable housing so that people can have a decent roof over their heads. Tonight we shall vote on whether we believe that distortion of the market and Government intervention to implement Government values is acceptable to the country, or whether people should determine for themselves local politics, economic development and investment, and be able to ensure affordable rents. We shall vote on whether such matters are to be decided through our system of political democracy or whether the restrictions and laws of the market place should be imposed on everyone from the centre.
Last week we saw the electorate's decision in respect of the European elections. In next year's local council elections and in the next general election, the Bill's provisions will contribute to the downfall of the Conservative Government.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. David Trippier): Let me begin by saying to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) that I am relieved not to have experienced a repeat of the last occasion when there was a major rail strike. The Bill was in Committee, and the hon. Gentleman will recall that at 10.30 am the Conservatives had a full house, while the Opposition Benches were completely empty.

Mr. Tony Banks: We were all walking to work, of course.

Mr. Trippier: The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) certainly was not there. He was probably talking to his parrot at the time.
I felt compelled to jump on to the other side of the Committee, because the hon. Member for Brightside felt a little lonely and I knew that he needed some help and advice. Now the hon. Gentleman has the temerity to accuse Ministers responsible for the Bill of being vindictive. When he stood alone and we bailed him out by delaying discussion, I do not think that our behaviour was vindictive. We could have completed the remaining stages of the Bill in 20 minutes, which would have been a record by any standards; but we chose not to do so.
Having heard the contribution of his hon. Friends tonight, I bet that the hon. Gentleman wishes that some of them had stayed away today as they did then. In particular, I do not think that he would have missed the hon. Members for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) and for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist): indeed, I do not think that anyone would miss them.
We have heard from the Opposition the usual mix of exaggeration, half truths and downright misinformation. Of course, they have a huge problem. Apart from the proposals outlined by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government, which stem from the independent Widdicombe committee, the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) has come up with the revelation—which will be on the record for everyone to see—that the Labour party believes in political chief executives. There is a direct conflict between what he said and what has been said by the hon. Member for Brightside.
The truth is that the Bill will achieve greater accountability, encourage better management and strengthen the local democratic process, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) said so clearly in his excellent speech.
The Opposition's other problem is that one of the principal aims of the Bill is to focus resources on those in greatest need. It seeks to direct improvement and repair grants to those on lower incomes, and to give more support to the poorer owner-occupiers. It seeks to focus capital expenditure on the areas of most need, and to relate current subsidies to needs so that authorities in poorer areas with more poor tenants will receive a higher proportion of the available subsidy.
Speaker after speaker this evening has attacked that as unfair. What do they want? What is their policy? Do they want to keep improvement grants for the better off-, at the expense of poorer owner-occupiers? Do they want to give fewer resources to the inner cities, and to the poorer authorities of the midlands and the north? Do they really want to retain a central rents system or formula which, by incorporating flat-rate increases regardless of cost, means higher rent increases than necessary in poorer districts and proportionately larger subsidies to richer districts?

Mr. Battle: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Trippier: I shall refer specifically to the hon. Gentleman in a few moments. He may wish to intervene then, and I shall certainly give him the opportunity. [Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the House will have the courtesy to listen to the Minister when he is winding up this important debate.

Mr. Trippier: Perhaps Labour Members want all the things that I have mentioned. Perhaps they want to spend more taxpayers' money on everyone. That is a strange thought, however. If it is true, Labour party housing policy is based on taxing poorer people and regions to provide grants for owner-occupiers who do not need them, extra resources for the richer southern authorities that draw in higher capital receipts, and increased subsidies to rents in richer areas with higher average incomes and lower unemployment.
The hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) has returned to his favourite topic, minimum housing standards. He is nothing if not persistent. Let me remind


the House about his minimum standards. There are 18 of them—enough to keep every environmental health officer in the country busy night and day. It would make the enforcement of income tax seem like a picnic. One of his standards stipulates that
Any dwelling shall be so located that the immediate environmental factors are tolerable.
What on earth does that mean? Does it mean that if I do not like the view from my kitchen window I can claim that my house is unfit? If the traffic on the road outside my house is heavy at certain times of the day, does that also mean that I can claim that my house is unfit?
Another of the hon. Gentleman's standards is that
The habitable room of any dwelling shall comprise a minimum size as specified by the Secretary of State.
I see that the hon. Member for Leeds, West is nodding.

Mr. Battle: rose—

Mr. Trippier: All this is from a party that claims conversion to consumer choice and that has attacked the Bill throughout its passage as giving the Secretary of State unacceptable powers.

Mr. Battle: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Trippier: I shall certainly give way, but the hon. Gentleman must be patient for just a little longer.
The hon. Gentleman suggested in Committee that the Secretary of State is being given unacceptable powers. However, he wants to give the Secretary of State more powers. Is he seriously suggesting that the Secretary of State should prescribe a room size that might condemn thousands of highly desirable houses to unfitness?
I ask the hon. Gentleman this simple question: how many properties in his own constituency would conform to his minimum standards? Would his own house conform to them? Mine certainly does not, nor does the home of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government or of my other ministerial colleague, the hon. Member for Surrey, South-West (Mrs. Bottomley). I give him this undertaking. I shall willingly, on any occasion that is convenient to both of us, visit his home. I know that he is a very hospitable chap. He boasts about Yorkshire hospitality, and I am sure that he will be hospitable, even to a Lancastrian like me. I know that I shall get a cup of tea, or even a little bit more. I am even prepared to bring with me my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, South-West. I shall enjoy inspecting the hon. Gentleman's home. If it fails any of the standards on the list of 18, I shall ask his local environmental health officer to provide an estimate of how much it would cost to bring his house up to standard and to multiply it by all other houses in a similar condition in his constituency and throughout the land. His proposal sounds reasonable, but it is totally unworkable, impracticable and interventionist in practice.

Mr. Battle: I am surprised to hear that the Minister has not heard of the Parker Morris standards which specify area, that there should be no dampness and that there should be adequate natural lighting, all of which are in the catalogue of 18. Will the Minister give an undertaking that he will restore the Parker Morris standards that his Government have removed and that the environmental health officers are calling for?

Mr. Trippier: So many additional standards have been laid down by the hon. Gentleman that, if we are not careful, we shall have everything, short of gold taps. It is absolutely ridiculous. The hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends—[Interruption.]

Mr. Tony Banks: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. It may very well be that the Minister is talking rubbish, but we are entitled to hear it. I should be grateful if you would call the House to order.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I have already drawn the attention of the House to the fact that far too many conversations are taking place while the Minister is speaking. I appeal to those hon. Members who wish to continue to hold conversations to do so on the other side of the swing doors.

Mr. Trippier: Of course until very recently Opposition Members had no alternative but to attack our policy. They had no alternative policy to offer. But the famed Labour party policy review has now been published and the cat is out of the bag. Opposition Members rebutted criticisms a score of times by referring to the clear statement of Labour's housing policy that was to come. It is the alternative to the Bill. Now that we have it all our questions can be answered. Now we learn how more grants for all and more subsidies for all regardless of need will be achieved. Calculating what rents will be under our policy, according to the hon. Member for Brightside, takes only a matter of minutes, and presumably can be worked out on the back of an envelope. So one can assume fairly safely, given the time that Opposition Members spent putting together their alternative to the Bill, which is referred to in their document, that that would be their answer.

Mr. George Howarth: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am grateful to the Minister for taking time to publicise the Labour party's excellent housing policy which appears in the review. However, as the Labour party's policy is not contained in the Bill, is the Minister in order?

Madam Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman can leave it to the occupant of the Chair to determine whether the Minister is in order.

Mr. Trippier: I am most anxious to stay in order.
I have heard a number of Opposition Members refer to their alternative policy, which is precisely what we are discussing.

Mr. O'Brien: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Trippier: I shall not give way. I have taken a number of interventions from Opposition Members, and as it is after 10 o'clock I am anxious to wind up.
I hope that Opposition Members will explain to the House and to the rest of the country who will pay for the extra subsidies that they would make available. It is clear that people in the midlands and the north will pay, as the Bill seeks to give fairer treatment to local authorities in the greatest need.
The Labour party's policy is a jumble of vague platitudes, a nod in the direction of every conceivable interest group. It was supposed to have been a review, but it is a recipe that has not changed one jot. It proposes to spend more money on everything and everyone. In direct contrast, the Government are proud to be the champion of


greater efficiency in local authorities, greater accountability in housing management and the directing of resources to those in greatest need. The Bill enshrines those policies, and I commend it to the House.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divided: Ayes 310, Noes 206.

Division No. 257]
[10.22 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Cran, James


Aitken, Jonathan
Critchley, Julian


Alexander, Richard
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Curry, David


Allason, Rupert
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Amess, David
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Amos, Alan
Day, Stephen


Arbuthnot, James
Devlin, Tim


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Dicks, Terry


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Dorrell, Stephen


Ashby, David
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Aspinwall, Jack
Dover, Den


Atkins, Robert
Dunn, Bob


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Dykes, Hugh


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Eggar, Tim


Baldry, Tony
Emery, Sir Peter


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Batiste, Spencer
Evennett, David


Bellingham, Henry
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas


Bendall, Vivian
Fallon, Michael


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Favell, Tony


Benyon, W.
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Fishburn, John Dudley


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Forman, Nigel


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Forth, Eric


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Fox, Sir Marcus


Boswell, Tim
Franks, Cecil


Bottomley, Peter
Freeman, Roger


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
French, Douglas


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Fry, Peter


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Gardiner, George


Bowis, John
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Gill, Christopher


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Glyn, Dr Alan


Brazier, Julian
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Bright, Graham
Goodlad, Alastair


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Browne, John (Winchester)
Gorst, John


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Gow, Ian


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Budgen, Nicholas
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Burns, Simon
Gregory, Conal


Burt, Alistair
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Butcher, John
Grist, Ian


Butler, Chris
Ground, Patrick


Butterfill, John
Grylls, Michael


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hague, William


Carrington, Matthew
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Carttiss, Michael
Hampson, Dr Keith


Cash, William
Hanley, Jeremy


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hannam, John


Chapman, Sydney
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Chope, Christopher
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Churchill, Mr
Harris, David


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Haselhurst, Alan


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hawkins, Christopher


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Hayes, Jerry


Colvin, Michael
Hayward, Robert


Conway, Derek
Heddle, John


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Cope, Rt Hon John
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)


Cormack, Patrick
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Couchman, James
Hill, James





Hind, Kenneth
Norris, Steve


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Holt, Richard
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hordern, Sir Peter
Page, Richard


Howard, Michael
Paice, James


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Patnick, Irvine


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Patten, John (Oxford W)


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Pawsey, James


Hunter, Andrew
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Irvine, Michael
Porter, David (Waveney)


Irving, Charles
Price, Sir David


Jack, Michael
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Jackson, Robert
Redwood, John


Janman, Tim
Renton, Tim


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Rhodes James, Robert


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Riddick, Graham


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Key, Robert
Roe, Mrs Marion


Kilfedder, James
Rossi, Sir Hugh


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Rost, Peter


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Kirkhope, Timothy
Sackville, Hon Tom


Knapman, Roger
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Sayeed, Jonathan


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Knox, David
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Shelton, Sir William


Lang, Ian
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Latham, Michael
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lawrence, Ivan
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Sims, Roger


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lilley, Peter
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Speller, Tony


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Lyell, Sir Nicholas
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


McCrindle, Robert
Squire, Robin


Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Stanbrook, Ivor


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Steen, Anthony


Maclean, David
Stern, Michael


McLoughlin, Patrick
Stevens, Lewis


McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Madel, David
Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)


Major, Rt Hon John
Stokes, Sir John


Mans, Keith
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Maples, John
Summerson, Hugo


Marland, Paul
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Marlow, Tony
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Maude, Hon Francis
Temple-Morris, Peter


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Mellor, David
Thome, Neil


Miller, Sir Hal
Thornton, Malcolm


Mills, Iain
Thurnham, Peter


Miscampbell, Norman
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Moate, Roger
Tracey, Richard


Moore, Rt Hon John
Tredinnick, David


Morris, M (N'hampton S)
Trippier, David


Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)
Trotter, Neville


Moss, Malcolm
Twinn, Dr Ian


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Neale, Gerrard
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Needham, Richard
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Nelson, Anthony
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Neubert, Michael
Waller, Gary


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Walters, Sir Dennis


Nicholls, Patrick
Ward, John


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Warren, Kenneth






Watts, John
Wolfson, Mark


Wells, Bowen
Wood, Timothy


Whitney, Ray
Yeo, Tim


Widdecombe, Ann
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Wiggin, Jerry
Younger, Rt Hon George


Wilkinson, John



Wilshire, David
Tellers for the Ayes:


Winterton, Mrs Ann
Mr. Tony Durant and


Winterton, Nicholas
Mr. David Lightbown.


NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Darling, Alistair


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Allen, Graham
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Alton, David
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'I)


Anderson, Donald
Dewar, Donald


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Dixon, Don


Armstrong, Hilary
Dobson, Frank


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Doran, Frank


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Douglas, Dick


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Duffy, A. E. P.


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Eadie, Alexander


Battle, John
Eastham, Ken


Beckett, Margaret
Fatchett, Derek


Beith, A. J.
Fearn, Ronald


Bell, Stuart
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Fisher, Mark


Bidwell, Sydney
Flannery, Martin


Blair, Tony
Flynn, Paul


Blunkett, David
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Boateng, Paul
Foster, Derek


Boyes, Roland
Fraser, John


Bradley, Keith
Fyfe, Maria


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Galbraith, Sam


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Galloway, George


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Buckley, George J.
Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)


Callaghan, Jim
George, Bruce


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Cartwright, John
Golding, Mrs Llin


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Gordon, Mildred


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Gould, Bryan


Clay, Bob
Graham, Thomas


Clelland, David
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Cohen, Harry
Grocott, Bruce


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Harman, Ms Harriet


Corbett, Robin
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Corbyn, Jeremy
Haynes, Frank


Cousins, Jim
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Cox, Tom
Henderson, Doug


Crowther, Stan
Hinchliffe, David


Cryer, Bob
Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)


Cummings, John
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Home Robertson, John


Cunningham, Dr John
Hood, Jimmy


Dalyell, Tarn
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)





Howells, Geraint
Prescott, John


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Primarolo, Dawn


Hoyle, Doug
Quin, Ms Joyce


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Radice, Giles


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Redmond, Martin


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Reid, Dr John


Illsley, Eric
Richardson, Jo


Janner, Greville
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Robertson, George


Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)
Robinson, Geoffrey


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Rooker, Jeff


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Kirkwood, Archy
Rowlands, Ted


Leadbitter, Ted
Ruddock, Joan


Leighton, Ron
Salmond, Alex


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Sedgemore, Brian


Livingstone, Ken
Sheerman, Barry


Livsey, Richard
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Short, Clare


Loyden, Eddie
Skinner, Dennis


McAllion, John
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


McAvoy, Thomas
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


McFall, John
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)


McKelvey, William
Snape, Peter


McLeish, Henry
Spearing, Nigel


Maclennan, Robert
Steel, Rt Hon David


McNamara, Kevin
Steinberg, Gerry


McWilliam, John
Stott, Roger


Madden, Max
Strang, Gavin


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Straw, Jack


Marek, Dr John
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Martlew, Eric
Turner, Dennis


Meale, Alan
Vaz, Keith


Michael, Alun
Wall, Pat


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Wallace, James


Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)
Walley, Joan


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Morgan, Rhodri
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Morley, Elliott
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Wigley, Dafydd


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Mullin, Chris
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Murphy, Paul
Winnick, David


Nellist, Dave
Wise, Mrs Audrey


O'Brien, William
Wray, Jimmy


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Patchett, Terry



Pendry, Tom
Tellers for the Noes:


Pike, Peter L.
Mr. Frank Cook and


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Mr. Robert N. Wareing.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Ways and Means

CAPITAL GAINS (SHARES AND SECURITIES HELD BY COMPANIES)

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That provision may be made about the treatment, in determining chargeable gains or allowable losses, of transactions involving the holding of shares in, and securities of, companies by other companies.—[Mr. Brooke.]

Mr. A. J. Beith: The charitable view of these four ways and means resolutions is that they are a sign of the Government's flexibility and their welcome willingness to listen to representations. The uncharitable view is that they illustrate what a mess the Government are in over the Finance Bill. The Government have already voted down three clauses of their own Finance Bill and have had to delay the proceedings on other clauses in order to make time to rewrite other substantial sections of it.
I welcome the fact that the Government have listened to representations, but what they have done has strengthened the argument for having a separate technical Finance Bill

in which complicated matters of this kind are dealt with and are the subject of widespread consultation before they are brought to the House, as have been some other parts of the Finance Bill. I hope that the Government will learn that lesson for the future.
Question put and agreed to.

WAYS AND MEANS

GROUPS OF COMPANIES

Resolved,
That provision may be made amending sections 272 and 278 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970 and section 97 of the Inheritance Tax Act 1984.

TRUSTEES AND PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVES

Resolved,
That provision (including provision having retrospective effect) may be made for the purposes of income tax about trustees and personal representatives.

TRADING COMPANIES

Resolved,
That provision may be made amending the definition of 'trading company' in section 136 of the Capital Gains Tax Act 1979 and section 576 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988.—[Mr. Brooke.]

Community Charge (Scotland)

Mr. Donald Dewar: I beg to move,
That the Housing Benefit (Community Charge Rebates) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1989 (S.I., 1989, No. 361), dated 7th March 1989, a copy of which was laid before this House on 10th March, be revoked.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): With this it will be convenient to discuss the next two motions:
That the Community Charges (Deductions from Income Support) (Scotland) Regulations 1989 (S.I., 1989, No. 507), dated 15th March 1989, a copy of which was laid before this House on 17th March, be revoked.
That the Community Charges (Information Concerning Social Security) (Scotland) Regulations 1989 (S.I., 1989, No. 476), dated 14th March 1989, a copy of which was laid before this House on 17th March, be revoked.

Mr. Dewar: The regulations which we are discussing tonight make unfortunate and unhappy reading. As the House will know, they deal with the poll tax and the enforcement machinery designed to extract an unfair tax from one of the most vulnerable groups in the community, people who have, almost by definition as recipients of income support, suffered under this Government in half a hundred different ways. I am aware that we are not having a general debate about the demerits of the poll tax, and I wish to concentrate fairly briskly on the regulations and some of the salient points which arise from them.
Will the Minister say a word or two about the Housing Benefit (Community Charge Rebates) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1989, particularly paragraph 14? This is the paragraph that deals with the 56-day rule. In their doubtful wisdom, the Government decided that the payment of the poll tax would start on 1 April this year, and if an eligible person applied for a rebate within 56 days of the starting point, the rebate—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There is a great deal of distracting sedentary noise. I hope that hon. Members will listen to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), as I am seeking to do.

Mr. Dewar: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall now go back to the fascinating subject of the 56-day rule.
I use the word "fascinating" in some seriousness, because it is an illustration of the Government's approach. Let me recapitulate. If one applies within 56 days, one is held to have applied as at 1 April 1989, and any rebate to which one is entitled will be taken from that date. The 56 days have now expired, so anyone who now applies for a rebate will receive one, only from the date of application. As three months have already passed, anyone who failed to apply in that period has already lost three months' worth of rebate. We must not assume that the people who are involved are those entitled to the maximum rebate, but many will lose substantial sums.
The rebate system is a difficult and complicated jungle, and the pain and confusion that have followed its introduction have made it difficult to know exactly how matters stand. I am told by Strathclyde region,which is by far the biggest levying authority in Scotland, that it estimates that around 580,000 people are eligible for rebates. It told me that, on its best estimate, only 480,000 have applied. It looks as though some 100,000 applicants,

many of whom have dependants, will have to suffer because of the 56-day rule. They cannot now catch up, and have lost at least three months' rebate this year. Every day that they delay, mostly because of confusion—there is no doubt about the confusion and misunderstandings that the complexities of the system have produced—means that they will suffer financially even more. That is not an unhappy situation, it is an intolerable one, and one that the Government have consistently refused to remedy, although the remedy was simplicity itself.
I and many of my hon. Friends, and many people who are not politically inclined but know the social realities, have pressed on the Minister the need to extend that 56-day period and to allow a more generous approach towards rebates. We have done so in vain. The Minister of State, Scottish Office, who has borne the brunt of the argument, has reinforced his reputation for not being a man of spontaneous warmth. He is not noted for relating to, and understanding, the problems of the deprived, and he has made it clear that the Government will turn a deaf ear to these proposals. That is a tragedy of which he and his colleagues should be ashamed.
The 56-day rule is formalised in these regulations. If that were the only point at dispute between ourselves and the Government, it would fully justify a vote against them. I hope that the Minister will say something about paragraph 15. For the sake of simplicity, I shall merely quote the explanatory note. It says:
This paragraph extends the information which may be provided by the Secretary of State to levying authorities to include a person's date of birth.
I mention it because I know that there is a great deal of genuine puzzlement in Scotland as to why the system in England is organised without a person's date of birth being used as part of the poll tax information package, but this has had to be imposed as a statutory requirement in Scotland, and further powers are being taken. This is not the most important point that we shall be debating. It does not have the social implications of the 56-day rule, nor its capacity for damage, but perhaps the Under-Secretary will say a word or two about it.
I do not often face the Under-Secretary across the Dispatch Box, and I do so tonight with an open mind. He will gain valuable brownie points in my eyes if he can provide the explanation that his colleagues in the Scottish Office were unable to provide in the many hours of debate that we had about the machinery of the poll tax.
The real crux of the debate, and the point of particular concern to me and my hon. Friends, is that the main drive of the principal order is to allow the deduction of poll tax arrears from benefit, especially from income support. It is a mean measure that will force the worst off in our community to fall below even the subsistence level of income support as presently calculated by the Government.
We know from recent exchanges with Ministers—and even with the Prime Minister—that the Government do not think that the basic pension is designed to provide comfort or to be an adequate income in itself. If that is true of the pension, it is very much more true of income support, which allows no gracious living, no room for the little luxuries that mean so much to morale and the quality of life of families. I know from constituency experience—as, to be fair, must Conservative Members—that those


on income support have to struggle and do not have the decent sufficiency that almost all of us want accorded to those in the greatest difficulty.
It is a shabby proposition to claw back poll tax out of income support. There is no real defence and no social justification for it. I appreciate that the Minister will no doubt advance a number of arguments, one or two of which I can anticipate. He will say that it is perfectly fair because those in receipt of income support have had a special supplement to cover the cost of the minimum poll tax contribution. Of course, the calculation of that is an arcane art, and one that I cannot pretend to have mastered. My understanding is that it is calculated on a United Kingdom basis, which is odd because the poll tax does not yet apply throughout the United Kingdom. It is also odd because in Scotland there are substantial variations, based upon local policy and local needs, in the amount of poll tax to be paid. In a broad-brush approach, everyone apparently has the same supplement—£1·15 this year for a single applicant under the age of 25; £1·30 for those over 25 and, strangely, for a couple it is £2·30, although we might reasonably have expected it to be £2·60.
All that is most unconvincing. I know from conversations with many people that few will believe that it is adequate cover to allow people living at that economic level to meet their poll tax commitments without difficulty or financial embarrassment. I have tried explaining that first, we take the income support personal allowance for the current year, take out the rates element, uprate it by the retail price index less the housing element, arrive at the magic figure of 4·7 per cent.—which sounds suspiciously low compared with the real rise in the cost of living—and then add on the special supplement. There is no credibility in that exercise. Any such argument is blown away by the pressures of reality, the pressures of poverty and the true condition in which those who will be victimised by the rules actually live. No one will think that justifiable, because nothing can justify the tax itself and the basis on which it is levied. There is no doubt in my mind that many people, faced by the clawback authorised in the orders, will find themselves living at a subsistence level that none of us should be prepared to accept.
The Minister may argue that there are many precedents for clawing back from benefit. The main precedent is where there has been overpayment of benefit, and because it must be reclaimed it is taken out of that same benefit in subsequent months. That may have unfortunate financial consequences, but there is a logic in it. It is all in the same benefit payment and there is a rough consistency which most people can understand.
There are occasions on which the South of Scotland Electricity Board or the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board, if not too outré or faraway organisations for the Minister to contemplate, have direct deductions to meet debt. It is, of course, theoretically possible for that to be done without the consent of the debtor, as I understand it, although the Minister may want to comment on that. However, in almost all cases in which I have been involved, which must run to many scores, such a step has been taken with negotiation and consent. The debtor is, of course, anxious to reach that consent because he has a specific service—the supply of electricity or gas—that he wants to maintain. There is a logic in that and a benefit for the person concerned, which is understandable.
Under the 1988 regulations for housing benefit, it is possible to deduct an overpayment from income support.

However, talking as I did with a number of local authorities in Scotland, I believe that, very properly, that power has never been used. If it were used, it would lead to bitterness and a lack of confidence in the system, which would do none of us any good. I do not believe that, in terms of precedents or in terms of the financial calculations of income support personal allowances, there is a case for what the Government are doing. I perceived justice, and in term of social impact, there is no case at all.
I recognise that many of my hon. Friends want to contribute, so I will not make a long speech. However, I want to ask a couple of technical questions about the regulations. Perhaps it is my curiosity that is to blame, and there may be simple answers to my questions. I want to draw the Minister's attention to paragraph 2(2)(a), which deals with the issue of a summary warrant in the name of a couple. Perhaps the Minister could give an example of a circumstance in which it would be likely that a summary warrant would be issued in the name of a couple. I understand that a husband and wife living together or a man and a woman living together may be jointly and severally liable for the poll tax debt of each. However, as I understand it, there would be an attempt to recover from both individually and only if one failed to pay would a bill be issued for the debt to the other. It is unlikely, although I may have misunderstood the matter, which is why I am raising it, that summary warrants would go out in the name of both parties, as a couple. Perhaps the Minister could explain when that would happen.
I hope that he will also say a word about the appeal procedure. There will be appeal to the commissioners and in certain circumstances not to one commissioner but to three commissioners, and on a point of law ultimately to the Court of Session. It is an interesting comment on the complexity of the system and on the labyrinth we are constructing that that mass of overlapping and extending appeals is being erected. Perhaps the Minister—

Mr. Dick Douglas: There is no Scottish Minister present.

Mr. Dewar: Perhaps the Minister could say a few words about the availability of legal aid in such cases.
Perhaps the Minister could also say a few words about deductions, which are the key to the matter. As I understand it, if a single debtor is involved, the deduction is 5 per cent. of the personal allowances for a single claimant aged not less than 25. Although it is not slated, because it may vary from time to time, I believe that it is £1·75 a week at present. For a couple who are both over 18, the relevant allowance is £54·80, I believe that the deduction is rounded up to £2·75. There is a reference to another claim and another test that has to be met. The unfortunate victim of the scheme is left with a minimum of lop of income support.
I accept immediately—I do not wish to mislead anyone—that if someone is living on income support alone, the £2·75 maximum if he is living as part of a couple will still leave him with quite a significant income, not merely 10p. If someone is left only with 10p, he clearly has a significant amount of other income. However, I repeat the important charge that, even so, many people will be in a difficult situation because they will be living significantly below the very basic level which has been laid down by the Government, who are not noted for their generosity i n this area. They are a Government who openly argue that the


poor need the spur of poverty so that they will better themselves in the market place. If we are driving people below even that standard, all hon. Members, whatever their political convictions, should take time to pause and to consider.
As the Minister no doubt knows, about 150,000 old-age pensioners in Scotland have to supplement their income with income support payments. Some of them will doubtless be driven near to the 10p rule and test by the deductions. In effect, they will then be living on that basic pension which the Prime Minister herself made clear that the Government recognise as not being sufficient for a decent standard of living. Is it right that we should force people into what the Prime Minister has recognised as an inadequate situation simply to recover 20 per cent. of a tax that has no valid basis and that is almost universally seen as unfair and unjust? The answer to that question is a resounding no.
I object strongly to the fact that, typically, it is the local authorities that are being put in the firing line. They are being given the duty of administering a scheme that they neither like nor want. Under the regulations they have to apply in writing to the Department to have the deduction machinery put in motion. As Ministers have doubtless calculated, it will be the local authorities that will be left to take the flak and the burden of the protests.
Having spoken again to the local authorities in my part of the world, which I do frequently, I can report that they have a good record in dealing with those in genuine poverty who find themselves wrestling with the problems of debt to statutory authorities. Strathclyde's record will stand any examination because, sensibly, that authority does not make dilettante political statements about policy, but takes each case on its merits and applies humane and sensible tests, while avoiding the rigours of civil diligence, which is naturally repugnant to public opinion and is a disaster for the individuals concerned.
I expect the same understanding to be applied in this case. However, I believe that on behalf of my hon. Friends I am entitled to protest that local authorities with such records are put again in this embarrassing and difficult position in defence of a system that they regard as an anathema.
Once again, it is a case of the poorest in the community being made to suffer—people who, by definition, are in unfortunate financial circumstances. It is another example of social legislation—because there are important social implications in this—further dividing society and driving a greater and greater wedge between those that have and those that have not.
One third of my constituency—one of my regional wards—has an unemployment rate of over 36 per cent. I am not talking about a couple of streets chosen at random but about large swathes on the west side of the city of Glasgow. Many people there are living in genuine poverty, dependent on benefit. Thoughtless, mean-minded legislation such as this exacerbates that problem, yet Ministers wonder why they face alienation and a level of dislike in Scottish politics that is almost unique in my experience.
Measures such as this are not simply about the mechanics of a collection system. A social principle is involved. A difference of approach is built into this legislation and it shines through the debates and

arguments on this matter. If the regulations are forced through by the Government—I accept they will be tonight, perhaps by many hon. Members who have not had any opportunity of considering them—the House should be ashamed. Even now, the Minister should think about drawing back.
I wish that the Scottish Office was represented on the Treasury Bench to try to defend a system which the vast majority of the people of Scotland regard as unrelated to the ability to pay, which is unjust and which shifts the burden of taxation on to those who can ill afford to bear it. In reinforcing that essentially unjust system, this mechanism has on its shoulders all the disadvantages, all the difficulties and all the shame of the grand design.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Peter Lloyd): The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) raised some points which it seems sensible for me to deal with straight away. He asked particularly about the date of birth. Inclusion of the birth date was requested to make it more convenient and easier for the local authority to distinguish between individuals of the same name—[Interruption.] Local authorities may not have asked for it—I do not know—but certainly it is being put in for their additional convenience. That is the reason for it. I am glad to be able to answer one of the first points about which the hon. Gentleman asked.

Mr. John McAllion: Does the Minister agree that the real reason why the date of birth has been made a statutory requirement is that local authorities will have to trace people as they move around the country and every individual in Scotland has been given a computer tag? Does he agree that that is why the date of birth has been made a statutory requirement?

Mr. Lloyd: It makes it easier for local authorities to distinguish between people of the same name living in the same household.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden asked about appeals. The appeal system is the normal social security appeal system. First the adjudication officer is involved, then the social security appeal tribunal and finally the commissioners on a point of law. It will be exactly the same as in the usual procedure. That is the method with which the social security system and local offices are familiar, and that people on social security who have appealed before know well.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about summary warrants. It will be possible to take out a warrant against one individual when there is a debt in respect of a couple, and it will be possible to proceed against the couple. That is for the local authority to decide.

Mr. Douglas: What a lot of dirty work local authorities are being asked to do.

Mr. Lloyd: The local authorities will want to recover the community charge owing to them in exactly the same way as they want to recover rates that are owing to them. There is no difference in principle or in the final procedure. On behalf of all its rate or charge payers, the local authority will need to collect what is due. There is nothing new in that.
With regard to the regulations before us, I will begin with the Community Charge (Deductions from Income Support) (Scotland) Regulations 1989 which were laid before Parliament on 17 March and came into force on 8 April. They reflect the intention that there should be equality of treatment, wherever possible, between those in employment and those receiving benefit. The hon. Member for Garscadden rightly made the point that deductions from income support for those receiving benefit represent a parallel and equivalent measure to arrestment of earnings for those in work.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced in October last year, as part of his uprating statement, that there would be a once-and-for-all adjustment to income support levels to meet the minimum 20 per cent. contribution which recipients will have to make to the community charge. Because this extra amount has been included in income support it is only right to ensure that it is used for its intended purpose.
As it has to with those in work, the levying authority must first obtain a summary warrant, to prove it is owed the money. This will be the trigger for these regulations. Principally, they provide that an authority, having obtained a summary warrant, may apply to the DSS for deductions from income support to meet that debt. In asking for such deductions the authority has to provide sufficient information to enable the local social security office to identify the debtor. Here the birthday date helps. We shall only consider deductions for the amount specified on the warrant or the authority requires.

Mr. Thomas Graham: My wife telephoned me tonight and told me that she had a letter saying that the Government want young people in YTS schemes. Such young people would probably receive about £35 per week, and would then be expected to pay 20 per cent. of the poll tax, plus 15 per cent., which exceeds their income support of £27·40. Therefore, a young person who gets, say, £35, which the Government are encouraging, is now expected to pay another £1·14 per week. Does the Minister not think that it is tragic that the Government are encouraging young people to come off the dole and into training schemes for which they will be given some money, but then taking some of that money back? Young people are really being sent to the graveyard, because they will not be able to pay the poll tax. Does the Minister realise that letters have been sent out to the managers running the schemes, and the managers are putting their hands up in horror, because young trainees are expected to live on the trainee allowance? What does the Minister say about that?

Mr. Lloyd: The Minister says that the purpose of the community charge is that everybody should make a contribution. The rate will be set by the local authority and there are rebates for those on low incomes. Those who are on YTS obviously come into the category of those on low incomes, and they are likely to get a substantial rebate.

Mr. Graham: Does the Minister not realise what I am saying? The Government have implemented a programme to encourage young people to go into employment training schemes—YTS—by saying that, from the guaranteed income support of £27·40, they would be expected to pay a 20 per cent. contribution to the poll tax. The Government are now saying, however, that because they receive additional money for travelling costs, the

Government will take that amount off in poll tax, which comes to a loss of £1·14 a week. Will the Minister answer that? Young people in Scotland will have that amount deducted, while those in England will not have that money deducted until next year. The young people in England will be far better off on the YTS scheme. Will the Minister tell the young people in Scotland what they are expected to live on?

Mr. Lloyd: The young people on YTS are earning above the income support rate for their age group, so they have a rebate in exactly the same way as anybody who is on income support, but adjusted for their actual earnings. That appears to be a much fairer system than the one we have now—the one that the hon. Gentleman appears to be defending—where some people pay heavy rates bills and some people pay absolutely nothing. In our system the burden is spread across the whole of the population. It is adjusted for those on lower incomes to suit those incomes. That appears to be basically fair and I should think that the hon. Gentleman would find it very easy to explain that to YTS trainees.
Where there is an outstanding community charge debt and sufficient income support, as decided by the adjudication officer, the rate of deduction will be, as the hon. member for Garscadden said, £1·75 a week for a single person and £2·75 a week for a couple, if both partners are debtors. Those weekly deductions are fixed by the regulations. There is no provision for them to be varied. The adjudication officer will decide that there is sufficient entitlement to income support only—again we come to a point mentioned by the hon. Member for Garscadden—if, after the deduction, the person is left with lop or more of that part of his income which comes from income support.
This is easy to misrepresent—the hon. Member for Garscadden sailed near to it, but he did not quite go across the line—but this safeguard, which appears in existing provisions for deductions to pay third parties, is there to ensure that we do not extinguish entitlement to benefit. The fixed flat rate deduction for a single person is £1·75 a week, and it is totally wrong to suggest that we propose to make that deduction and leave someone with an income of only 10p. Benefit can be reduced to 10p only if income support was very low to start with and the individual relies mainly on another source of income.

Mr. Dewar: I think that the hon. Gentleman would concede that I was very careful not to make that suggestion. If he reads my speech, he will see that I spent some time establishing that point. Will the hon. Gentleman, however, address himself to the example that I cited, which is that of the many thousands of old-age pensioners in Scotland who have the basic pension and income support? Some of them might well be taken down to an income near the basic pension, if not down to 10p above it. We know from the Minister for Social Security and the Prime Minister that it is accepted that that is not sufficient for a comfortable living. Is it necessary that they should be driven into that situation in order to recover the poll tax in the way that is outlined?

Mr. Lloyd: My right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security was referring not just to income support but to housing benefit. The amount taken away will not be more than the income support element of their social security benefits. That is what the hon. Gentleman is asking about.

Mr. Dewar: What level could the income be taken down to?

Mr. Lloyd: It could get down to a level 10p above the basic pension, but the hon. Gentleman is forgetting that that pensioner may have housing benefit and may well be paying 20 per cent. of the rates now. The point that my hon. Friend was making was that not all the household outgoings have to be met by the single person's pension alone. There are other benefits in addition to income support.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: The Department is about to introduce the scheme into Macclesfield, Scarborough, Cambridge, Bolton and all sorts of other places. With that in view, would it not have some sort of report from the Scottish managers on how matters have worked out in practice? Following the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham), is the Minister saying that the managers think that things have worked out as smoothly as he has suggested to the House?

Mr. Lloyd: I have not suggested that it has or has not worked out smoothly. I have not reached that issue yet. The community charge has started extraordinarily well in Scotland. It was an enormous change. [Interruption.] Hon. Members may laugh, but I have sat in this Chamber listening to Opposition Members explaining how registration would be a complete disaster, how it could not be managed by Scottish local authorities and was administratively impossible. But I understand that Scottish local authorities have done much better than Scottish Members ever believed possible and that the numbers registered range from 99 to 100 per cent.

Mr. Alex Salmond: I do not know how familiar the Minister is with recent Scottish newspapers, but is he aware that, in a report in The Scotsman last week, local authority finance officers in Scotland estimated that at least 1 million Scots have not paid their poll tax? What does the Minister think about that?

Mr. Lloyd: One cannot rely on such figures put out in the newspapers. What I do know is that the expectations for registration have been fulfilled, that many of the bills have been sent out, on time and rebated, but not all of them. There is a large backlog to be made up, as one would expect with any substantial change in a system such as this. Our estimates of the case load for rebates was 780,000, which includes couples and individuals. That means over I million individuals. At the end of the 56 days to which the hon. Member for Garscadden referred, we had about one and one third of a million applications. If one grosses that up for the individuals we find that our predictions for the caseload look as though they are being fulfilled.

Mr. Dewar: indicated dissent.

Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman may shake his head, but I am talking about figures that were carefully prepared by my Department for our guidance.

Mr. Dewar: I am sorry to intervene again, but this is important. I took the trouble to speak to senior officers of the biggest authority, Strathclyde region, today. Their genuine and best estimate was that the authority was about 100,000 short of its estimate. In other words,

somewhere out there in Strathclyde there are about 100,000 applicants who are probably eligible who have not yet applied. Even if there were only a handful, would there not be a strong case in humane terms for extending the 56-day rule and not penalising those people, particularly in view of the extraordinary confusion that all Scottish Members find in their surgeries every week, when constituents come in with a mass of incomprehensible papers that they do not know what to do with?

Mr. Lloyd: The 56-day concession was suggested by Scottish local authorities and we were happy to adopt it, knowing that there would be difficulties at the beginning of the changeover. The total arrangement comprises those 56 days, eight weeks, allowing for two demands for payment, and three spare weeks afterwards. The most vulnerable—those receiving housing benefit—automatically transferred on to the rebate. Those receiving income support were sent a personal letter with a claim form well before 1 April, so they received not a general but a specific notification. Since then there have been television advertising, press advertisements, and a great deal of editorial comment, assisted by the attacks made by Opposition Members, for which I give due credit and for which, in this context at least, I am very grateful.
Applications for rebates not only match but exceed our expectations. The number arriving now is quite small, but one expects applications to continue as people move or become entitled to rebate for the first time. However, from the figures that I have seen and on the basis of our calculations, there is no justification for extending the 56-day period. Other people may produce different calculations, but I am sceptical of the basis on which they were made.
There remains the good cause provision for backdating entitlement, available to those who can show good reason for not having yet made an application. It is for the local authority to judge whether or not the individual had a valid reason for not knowing that application could be made, or for not being able to apply, or was totally confused by wrong information or propaganda—or even by the advice that he should have nothing to do with the community charge.

Mr. Jeff Rooker: As one English Member to another, may I ask the Minister how many Scottish local authorities he has visited to discuss at first hand with officials the difficulties that are arising?

Mr. Lloyd: Speaking as one English Member to another, I think that the hon. Gentleman knows the likely answer to his question. Of course I have not visited local authorities in Scotland. I rely, as all Ministers do, on information from not just one, two or three local authorities but, through the system of reporting, from every Scottish local authority. I have information from them all, which is far more valuable and a much sounder basis on which to form a judgment than dashing up on a train or plane to spend a few days in Scotland talking to just one, two or three local authorities.

Mr. Bill Walker: Is my hon. Friend aware that the degree of confusion that exists in Scotland has been brought about by politicians making comments about non-collection of the community charge? I refer


particularly to members of the Scottish National party, yet the only district council that it runs is collecting the community charge. Is it surprising that confusion exists?

Mr. Lloyd: It is not surprising at all. As I said earlier, local authorities in Scotland have done extraordinarily well to introduce the system with such efficiency and effectiveness, given the tirade of propaganda from Opposition Members. I am certain, however, that those efficient local authorities will be able to judge whether some individuals have been confused—retirement pensioners, for instance—and will take that into account and allow them to backdate their rebates to 1 April.
The Community Charges (Information concerning Social Security) (Scotland) Regulations 1989 permit the Secretary of State, through the staff of DSS local offices, to pass certain specified information to community charge registration officers. As people on income support are receiving additional money to help them pay 20 per cent. of the community charge, it is reasonable that they appear on the community charge register. The purpose of the regulations is to ensure that that happens. I will explain to the House why the regulations take the form that they do.
Community charge registration officers need access to certain sources of information so that their registers are as accurate as possible at any given time. They are able to require the information that they need from the authorities which administer housing benefit and community charge rebate, so they have access to the names, dates of birth and addresses of everyone who has claimed either or both those benefits. If it were not for the regulations, however, the CCROs would not have access to information from DSS offices, as information about income support is held on a confidential basis. That information may be passed to CCROs so that they can check it against their registers and ensure that there are no discrepancies.
I stress that the information that is specified is the minimum necessary for the purpose, and that the CCRO may not use it for any purpose other than for maintaining his register.
The Housing Benefit (Community Charge Rebates) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1989 make a number of changes to the arrangements for rebating the community charge in Scotland. Some were necessary to maintain alignment between these regulations and the Housing Benefit (General Amendment) Regulations 1989. It is important that the two schemes should be as closely aligned as possible so that they are as simple as possible for local authorities to administer, and as easy as possible for claimants to understand.

Mr. John Home Robertson: The rather dry manner in which the Minister is dragging his way through his brief gives me the impression that he may be having a dummy run for this time next year, when he will be applying the same regulations to England. Will he have a shot at convincing me that he is not simply using Scotland as a guinea pig? Can he also convince me that he knows something about what he is talking about by naming just three local authorities in Scotland which administer the poll tax?

Mr. Lloyd: Certainly Scotland is not being used as a guinea pig. As the hon. Gentleman well knows, the reason why legislation was applied to Scotland first was that there

was a larger and earlier demand for a change in the rating system there after the revaluation. That is why Scotland is lucky enough to be experiencing this excellent change first.
If Scotland were being used as a guinea pig, we should have delayed the provision for England and Wales for another year. It might then have been possible to learn some lessons from Scotland—if there are any lessons to be learned. The English legislation is already on the statute book, however, and the preparations are well down the track, so we are treating England in exactly the same way.
The hon. Gentleman asked for three examples of Scottish authorities administering the poll tax. Well, Strathclyde is certainly one. Another is Central. How about that?

Mr. Bill Walker: Tayside, Grampian and Fife.

Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend is quite right. I suspect that if hon. Members asked me to name three English counties now, I should be hard put to do so.
There are a number of other points which might be touched upon, but I have already commented on the main issues that have been raised by Opposition Members, particularly by the hon. Member for Garscadden and I wish to leave time for other hon. Members to make their points, which may be different from those that have already been made. I have confidence, nevertheless, in commending these excellent regulations to the House.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I appeal for brief speeches in the short time that is left.

Mr. Dick Douglas: I shall, of course, Mr. Deputy Speaker, try to be brief. As you very well know, I tabled a motion on the poll tax that was not taken, for good or bad reasons, on Friday.
I want to take up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) about the 56-day rule. The Minister was somewhat sceptical about who speaks for Scottish local authorities. It is unfortunate that, once again, no Scottish Minister is on the Treasury Bench to instruct other Ministers about what happens in Scotland. I assume that the Minister knows that the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and its president speak for Scottish local authorities. Mr. Milligan, the president, made a speech on 12 June in which he said:
It is extremely likely therefore that a good number of those not paying at that time will be eligible for a rebate which authorities will be unable to backdate as the relevant period for doing so will have expired. These categories of potential claimants plus the general conclusions from our trawl"—
that is, of all local authorities—
suggests that there may be up to 200,000 or so individuals who will lose out unless the 56-day rule is extended.
That is the view not of one local authority but of all Scottish local authorities, and 200,000 is not an insubstantial number.
The Minister is under an obligation to redress the imbalance. People may not have cottoned on to all the sophisticated advertising. It may be that there has been obfuscation and that people do not understand it. Notwithstanding that, 200,000 people who ought to be receiving benefits that the Government suggest are generous should have their benefits fully backdated.
Those who are really suffering from the poverty trap are just above the income limit for claiming rebate. Scottish


local authorities have a great deal of sympathy for personal circumstances, but they are required by the legislation to carry out the appropriate debt recovery procedures.
What we are talking about was highlighted yesterday during the Prime Minister's exchanges with my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). We are talking about taking money away from people who are on income support and benefits that provide them not with a luxurious standard of living but with a bare minimum standard of living. By the use of obnoxious procedures, any income support that they receive from the state will be taken away from them, probably leaving them with only 10p. The fact that only a few hon. Members are here this evening demonstrates the lack of knowledge about the subject. Only one Scottish Tory who might know something about it is here this evening. The rest of the Tory Members might know something about the theory, but we are talking about the practice.

Mr. Bill Walker: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Douglas: I shall not give way. Front-Bench speeches have taken up an hour of our time, so Back Benchers are due their time to speak.
We are talking about taking money back from people who are just above the poverty line to impose a tax that is completely unrelated to ability to pay. The Minister may shake his head, but it is the truth. It is not a charge for local authority services. All hon. Members representing Scottish constituencies could adumbrate their own experiences. I shall give one or two examples of what can happen.
An old woman came to me for advice. She has moved two doors down the road to look after her 90-year-old mother. The local authority deemed her to be living with her mother and so asked her for four lots of poll tax—two because she was living with her mother and two standard charges for the housing that she had vacated. That is not a charge for local authority services; it is a property charge, as it applies to the house that has been vacated. It may be that the multiplier is wrong, but if the multiplier is wrong, why the hell do the Government use that multiplier for the rate support grant?
You know quite a lot about taxation, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so I put it to you that this is the first tax that the Government claim has no anomalies. I suggest that it is riddled with anomalies. The Government will have to bend and review those anomalies, some of which bear most heavily on a section of the population which I have mentioned before and which I make no apologies for mentioning again—the severely mentally impaired.
I have a letter from the Scottish Society for the Mentally Handicapped which has issued a leaflet at a cost of £725. I hope that the Minister will arrange through the Scottish Office for that sum to be reimbursed. The letter states:
There are also cases where disabled people who are not exempt may be required to pay a Community Charge out of a personal allowance of £10 per week. This has happened in some hostels which have been treated as residential care homes for income support purposes but are classed as domestic homes by Registration Officers.

Why are we removing the burden from those who are most able to pay and putting it on the backs of those who are least able to pay?
I know that I am at odds with some of my hon. Friends in the stance I have taken, but I know what is happening in my area. The position in Scotland is unlike the theories for England and Wales. It does not apply to Northern Ireland where the same social security legislation applies. The Government will not apply the poll tax in the Falls road or the Shankill. Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom. They should try it there.

Mr. Edward Leigh: That is because they cannot collect it there.

Mr. Douglas: The hon. Gentleman should not intervene from a sedentary position because he is one of the proponents of a united kingdom. If we are a united kingdom, we should all be treated equally.
An explosion is coming in Scotland. It is not that people want to defy the law. They will have no choice.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Rubbish.

Mr. Douglas: Hon. Gentlemen should not say, "Rubbish." If they want to intervene, they should stand up and do so. It is not rubbish: it is fact. People will not be able to meet the obligation. I challenge any of my colleagues who have any responsibility for dealing with local authorities or any communication with them to tell me what is happening to housing debt. I know that it is soaring in Dunfermline, because people cannot meet their obligations. The poll is first call on them. It is automatic. It is an instrument whereby a button is pressed to take away their income support.
The House is empty of Scottish Tories tonight; indeed, Scotland is nearly empty of them. One solitary Scottish Tory is here tonight, and he will vote for this, knowing that many people in his area do not want to defy the law, but will have no alternative, because this is an automatic process. The button is pressed, and income support is taken away. The button is pressed, and warrant sale takes place. It is pressed again, and wage arrestment will follow. The procedure will malign local authorities. If the Government want to implement this, let them take the stick. Let them administer the tax and do the dirty work.
Scottish local authorities cannot stand back another two or three years until the next general election, hoping for a Labour Government then. I dearly want a Labour Government to remove this burden. In the meantime, the people whom I represent will suffer all the more because of the passing of regulations such as these.

Mr. Bill Walker: At least the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) had the courtesy to accept that I know something about the situation in Scotland. I do not doubt the integrity with which he looks after his constituents. I hope that he does not doubt the integrity with which I look after mine.
It was interesting to hear the hon. Gentleman highlight the problem of the lady who moved two doors down. I accept his worry on that score. I too am deeply concerned about that aspect of the community charge. I believe that the problem could have been resolved if the local authority had handled it a little more sympathetically. I have had the local authority's decisions reversed in one or two cases in


my constituency. In fact, that has happened on four or five occasions. I am not sure of the fifth occasion, because I have not had it confirmed in writing.
When a person moves to stay with a child—as is normal within families—he should not have to pay a double community charge on his usual nearby home. To have to do so is nonsense, as we all know. This anomaly has been created by the way in which some local authorities have handled certain cases. But this is not a long-term criticism. It was inevitable, during this dramatic change, that problems and anomalies would be highlighted. I have shown that many of them can he dealt with at local level.
These regulationss are to do with rebates and clawbacks, and the principles involved in them. The taxpayer is the chap on average income, with two children, who lives next door to someone who is in receipt of public support because his circumstances require that support. The person who pays for that support is the taxpayer. As my hon. Friend the Minister intimated, we should not deviate from the principle that taxpayers' money should be used for the purpose of support for which it was allocated. We have a duty to protect those on low incomes who pay income tax. Many do, and I wish that they did not.
I draw this to the attention of constituents who come to see me. I know where they live, and ask them whether they expect their taxpaying next-door neighbours to pay their dues.
Taxpayers are not the rich and wealthy. Instead, they are average individuals who form the majority. We must protect them, and that is why it is right that clawback powers should be provided in the regulations. We must deal with individuals, and my hon. Friend the Minister told us that each individual would be receiving a letter telling him how the system would operate and how claims could he made. It is right that each individual case should be treated on its merits.
I acknowledge that a small minority will cheat deliberately. We all know who they are. Our constituents come to us to complain about cheats. Those who live near them—perhaps in the same street—know who they are. My constituents tell me about them. When reports have been made to me, I have taken the matter further to the proper authorities. Where necessary, I have ensured that prosecutions follow. That is right and proper.

Mr. Graham: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Walker: I shall give way in a minute. The hon. Gentleman has had his fair share of the batting—of the evening's activities—and there are others who want to make a contribution.
I do not believe that any hon. Members want those who cheat deliberately, who milk the system, to get away with it, whoever they are and at whatever level they operate. That is why I think it right that, when we use public funds we should—

Mrs. Maria Fyfe: Has the hon. Gentleman considered the position of someone such as Lord Vesty, who is famous for cheating the taxpayer out of several thousands of pounds? Lord Vesty will stand to gain huge sums from the introduction and implementation of the poll tax in Cirencester, where he lives. The hon. Gentleman seems to be referring to those on low incomes when he talks about cheats, but he has not yet addressed himself to those who have not paid the poll tax because they cannot afford to do so.

Mr. Walker: The hon. Lady protests too loudly. If we live in a civilised society, and I hope that we do, and if there are genuine problems—I have said that individual cases must be examined on their merits—we must recognise them. I deal with each problem as it relates specifically to the individual who has brought it to my attention. I think that all hon. Members adopt that approach. I think also that we all find that not everything is as it is presented to us.
An irate constituent came to me to draw attention to the problems that his mother was facing. He told me that his mother was required to pay the community charge in full. He argued that that was shameful as she was a pensioner, a widow and living alone. I told him that I would examine the circumstances. I did so, and found that the lady had £30,000-worth of equity. When my constituent returned to see me I asked him—I shall not give the names of these people because I am sure that they would not wish me to disclose them—"Do you think that Mr. So-and-So who lives next door, a bus driver with two young children, should pay your mother's community charge? That is effectively what you are saying. You are expecting the taxpayer to pick up the bill." That is why each case must be examined individually.
I have no doubt that in some instances something will have to be done to recognise the special circumstances in which an individual finds himself, possibly as a result of events over which he does not have full control. It is essential that there are provisions within the system to allow for that. We must recognise that there will always be individuals, sadly, who will have to be helped out of the circumstances in which they find themselves.
When the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) said that there was confusion, I pointedly drew attention in an intervention to the fact that the confusion in my constituency, in Dundee, West and in Dundee, East had been caused by the situation in Tayside. Nobody is in any doubt about where the Labour party stands on this issue. There is confusion in Tayside because the leaders of the Scottish National party are telling the public at large—including those in receipt of housing benefit, those on public support and those who will be affected by the instruments before the House tonight—not to pay the community charge.
But the SNP in office locally—the administration in Angus district—is collecting the community charge. Indeed, additional staff are being taken on to deal with it. So on the one hand SNP members are saying that they will bring in enforcement orders and issue warrants, and on the other, the SNP at the highest level is telling people not to pay. It is no wonder that there is confusion. That is why—for example, in Dundee, East, Dundee, West, Angus, East, Perth and Kinross and in my constituency—we have this problem.
The hon. Member for Garscadden was right to talk about confusion. The people of Tayside have no idea what the SNP—in or out of administration—is telling people, and that is causing the most awful confusion.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I remind the House of my earlier appeal for brief speeches.

Mr. Alex Salmond: Frequently it seems to be my unfortunate duty to speak following the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker). I hope that the bus driver of whom he spoke is voting for him, after all the hon. Gentleman's heroic efforts on his constituent's behalf.
After examining the instruments Nos. 507 and 476, my hon. Friends and I would like to know why people on income support for their basic income are being asked to pay the poll tax at all. The progenitor of the poll tax, former Councillor Douglas Mason, is quoted in an interesting article in the Aberdeen Evening Express of 14 June last—[Interruption.] I gather that Conservative Members would rather I called it the community charge. In that article, Mr. Mason revealed that he had called it the poll tax, and he added disarmingly:
I wish I had thought of calling it the community charge. It sounds so much nicer.
He went on to say that, from the point of view of the poll tax, he had three main criticisms of the measure that the Government had introduced. The report said of his second criticism:
Secondly, because he designed the tax to make sure local authorities were accountable to the people they serve, he proposed that those who were on benefits should be made to pay the full amount
of the poll tax. We find, therefore, that ex-Councillor Mason, the progenitor of the poll tax, is disappointed that the Government have gone only as far as making those on income support pay 20 per cent. of the poll tax, plus the community water charge.
It would not have been so bad had the Government arranged matters in such a way that those in receipt of income support and facing the poll tax charge were fully compensated for the amount of poll tax that they must pay. We can only conclude that a Minister who cannot even name three local authorities in Scotland is not aware that in Scotland there are many people whose uprating of income support will not cover the poll tax bill that they face. In my constituency, a single person loses by 31p a week, a married couple by more than 60p a week. In many other areas of Scotland where the poll tax is higher, the loss to those people on income support who face the poll tax is much greater. The Minister must say why, depending on where they live, those on income support in Scotland should find that the poll tax eats into their basic income levels.
This evening we must ask ourselves why the Government are bringing in statutory instruments which require more information and the direct deduction of poll tax from income support. The answer is given in the recent publicity about the I million people in Scotland who are not paying the poll tax.
This Sunday's Observer contained an interesting comment from the leader of the Labour group on Lothian regional council, Councillor John Mulvey, who said:
the non-payment campaign is alive and well and going from strength to strength. There is clearly a sizeable number of people who are not prepared to pay the poll tax and their ranks are being swollen by those who cannot afford to pay.
In spite of council officials saying that things are going well, the reality is that they're really quite worried by the scale of opposition that is developing.
Not everyone in the Labour group on Lothian regional council shares his opinion. Councillor Eric Milligan was

mentioned earlier in this debate. In the words of Councillor Tony Kinder, the Labour councillor for Broxburn in the Lothian region, Councillor Milligan is the
self-appointed poll tax collector-in-chief to the Conservative Party.

Mr. George Galloway: What about Grampian?

Mr. Salmond: The hon. Member mentions Grampian region. It is interesting to note that the Scottish National party finance convenor of Grampian region was the one finance convenor in Scotland who was prepared to go to the wall to stop warrant sales in the poll tax, while members of the Labour party in the Grampian region sat on their hands and allowed the Democrats and the Conservatives to vote him out of office. We all know that that is not something which "warrant sale Milligan" is likely to do in the Lothian region.
Statutory instruments Nos. 507 and 476 are signs of Government panic in face of the strength of the non-payment campaign in Scotland. There is no breach of civil liberties which the Government would not be prepared to encounter. There is no imposition on the poorest in the community that the Government would not be willing to consider to try to keep the poll tax show in Scotland on the road. However, the poll tax in Scotland will be ground into the dust of history where it belongs. That will be done by the strength of the non-payment campaign which is under way at the moment.

Mr. George Galloway: We have just heard the red Clydesider from Banff and Buchan talking about the great and stalwart fight which his colleagues in the Grampian region are conducting. His colleague sitting next to him, the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) comes from the local authority which is one of the most assiduous collectors of the poll tax in Scotland. However, I would be wasting the five minutes available to me if I talked any longer about this farce to my left.
I found none of the farce on the Conservative Benches at all funny this evening. These proceedings have been an outrageous mockery. We were talked down to by a Minister representing the rolling downs of Hampshire, who would not know a Scottish local authority if it hit him in the face. No Scottish Office Minister was present until the Whips went into the back shop and dragged the Minister responsible for the poll tax in Scotland away from his bottle of port. As soon as the Scottish press left the Gallery, the Minister returned to his drinks party in the back shop. Only one Tory Scottish Member of Parliament has sat through this farce from beginning to end, and that is the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker), whom it is not easy to embarrass.
This farce typifies the sad position to which the government of Scotland has been reduced. These regulations will allow the poorest people in Scotland to be hunted down for a few pence and in the name of the community charge. It is only a few pence to Her Majesty's Government, who are sitting atop billions of pounds worth of surplus. The tax, and the farce associated with it, exemplify the reasons why each election and each opinion poll bring home—or ought to—to Her Majesty's


Government the extent to which they are now virtually bereft of popular support in the country of Scotland, which they purport to govern.
The Government, and their comprador in the Scottish Office, are a Government of Scottish Bourbons, who have learnt nothing and are forgetting nothing. There are no prizes for guessing who the Marie Antoinette is. I thought about who the Secretary of State might be, and the only figure I could come up with was Cardinal Rohan, whose patch was Strasbourg, but perhaps that is a delicate subject in these troubled times for the Tory party. The Government, who are implementing their mean-spirited, dire and pathetic regulations, are doing so without the slightest scintilla of popular support. As others have said, they are taking money from people on benefit, which, by definition, gives a level of financial support that is the very lowest that can be accepted in a civilised society of the Prime Minister's type. Even by this Government's standards, that is shameful.
Robin Small of the Low Pay Unit described the regulations as scandalous. He said:
The whole notion of arresting Income Support which is considered to be subsistence level is scandalous.
How can the Government say they are keeping people off the poverty line by giving them Income Support and then take it away in certain circumstances?
The Evening Times in Glasgow has fought a courageous campaign against the poll tax. It said in an editorial:
The community charge is a tax without pity. Today we expose how it will be collected from many poor families who won't, or can't afford to pay … Is this the sort of heartless society we truly want?
It describes the Minister's memorandum in this way:
This is a brutal, oppressive memorandum. It shows how hard-nosed official channels are becoming about poverty. The State will have its pound of flesh, come what may, and never mind if people starve in the process.
There are people in Scotland who are pretty nearly going hungry, and this poll tax and these mean-spirited regulations will make it even harder for people living on the breadline to make ends meet. I hope that that is a pretty sight from the rolling downs of the Minister's constituency, because from where I sit, it is a pretty ugly one.

Dr. John Reid: It speaks volumes for the concern of the Scottish National party that, when the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) is given the opportunity to criticise the perpetrators of the poll tax in Scotland, he instead spends his time attacking the only potential Government, the Labour party.
During my short career in Parliament I have sat through debates on shameful pieces of legislation, but none more shameful than what we are discussing tonight. It might benefit the season ticket holders who have arrived late for the vote, and who were not here to watch the match, if I explained what the legislation is all about. Tonight we are contemplating taking powers to withdraw from essential benefits the anticipated arrears in payment of an unfair tax from those who can least afford to pay it.
If there was ever an admission of the callousness of the poll tax and of the Government who introduced it, this statutory instrument is it. We were told that it was a fair tax, that it took account of ability to pay, that it was designed to encourage individual responsibility and individual dignity. What a sham, what hypocrisy. What is fair about a tax for which arrears can be anticipated and

which will deprive the poorest in society of a minimal subsistence benefit designed to keep them not in comfort, not even in the less than comfort of the pension, but just minimally above the poverty line? How can a tax that takes any real account of ability to pay anticipate that the poorest will fall into arrears and inevitably will have to be punished by withdrawal of benefit? How can a tax encourage independence and dignity when, even before it is three months old, the Government are laying regulations that will reduce even further the little economic independence and dignity that anyone on income support can muster?
This is not simply a technical measure. It shows why the poll tax is absolutely rotten to the core. The poll tax already flies in the face of all progressive legislation by treating women as the chattels of their husbands. It stands on its head the Government's claim of individual responsibility by lumping husbands and wives together, even when the wife has only a minimal income. This measure is the most ignominious of all the aspects of the poll tax. It is no wonder that the Scottish Office Ministers did not have the guts to sit on the Front Bench while the Minister defended it.
This is not a tidying-up measure; it is an open admission of the bankruptcy of the Government's social morality. It is an open admission that the poor will fall into arrears and will be punished for it. How much have we heard tonight about the technicalities of the regulations? We heard much about 10p and 56 days. We cannot possibly portray the misery of a family on the poverty line through some chap in a Civil Service office. We cannot possibly understand what families on income support who face the poll tax are going through simply by reading some fancy footnote from the Department of Social Security. We need to live with those families to understand what they face. The Minister's kids do not go to school with the kids of families on income support. The Minister does not have meals with those families. A Minister who cannot name three local authorities in Scotland and cannot name three families in poverty in Scotland has no right to introduce legislation that will so adversely affect them.
I have many criticisms of the poll tax legislation. It is as needed in Scotland, as popular in Scotland and as useful in Scotland as the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth). I have searched all night for a worse criticism, but I cannot find one.

Mrs. Maria Fyfe: I am glad to have this opportunity to point out that when the memorandum from the Secretary of State for Social Security was sent to DSS offices in Scotland—it was based on statutory instrument No. 507—it was kept secret from Members of Parliament. When I asked to see a copy, I was told that I could not have one. I asked that it be placed in the Library, but that was refused. Another hon. Member asked whether it would appear in Hansard, but was told that it would not, on the grounds that it was only an interim order and that further instructions would be issued at a later date.
The Government were hoping to hide their iniquitous action. They were also hoping to hide the incompetence of the Ministers concerned. I managed to get hold of the memorandum and I have it here with me tonight. On page 2, it says that if a person fails to pay the poll tax, one of


the options open to obtain the poll tax from him is confinement in prison. One point about the poll tax that is well known in Scotland is that people do not go to prison in Scotland for not paying the poll tax. We have the spectacle of the Department of Social Security sending out a memorandum telling officials that people in Scotland go to prison for failing to pay the poll tax although that is clearly wrong. It is hardly surprising—

Mr. Greg Knight: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Fyfe: No.
It is hardly surprising, considering that the Minister could not name three of the Scottish local collecting authorities. It would help if he could at least manage to consult his Scottish Office colleagues to get right the law in Scotland and to avoid the embarrassment of the reaction that rightly came from people when the Evening Times exposed the fact that the Government were prepared to leave people in desperate need of money with as little as lop of their income support. I do not know why they bother to leave 10p. Why not leave nothing, or at least 19p, so that those people can at least put a stamp on a letter to their Members of Parliament to take up their case? There is nothing more to say except that the regulations are one of the main reasons why this Conservative bunch who come in late and hear nothing of the debate—

Mr. Knight: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Hon. Members: Sit down.

Mrs. Fyfe: Those Conservative Members will vote for the regulations. They have nothing but contempt for the people of Scotland.

Mr. John McAllion: I would—

Mr. Greg Knight: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. McAllion: I would consider giving way to the hon. Gentleman if he had had the courtesy to come into the Chamber and listen to the arguments about these regulations and the Scottish response. He has spent his time in the bar or somewhere else. He should go back there now and make no more attempts to intervene in this important debate.
We have seen here tonight the best possible argument for the establishment in Scotland at the earliest possible date of a Scottish Parliament to deal with Scottish matters. Conservative Members have shown an absolute lack of appreciation not only of the Scottish issue—

Mr. Greg Knight: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman alleged that I have been in the bar. In fact, I have been in the Library, and I hope that he will give way to allow me to answer some of the criticisms that have been made on the subject—

It being one and a half hours after the motion was entered upon, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to order [16 June]:—

The House divided: Ayes 193, Noes 280.

Division No. 258]
[12.07 am


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Allen, Graham
Grocott, Bruce


Anderson, Donald
Harman, Ms Harriet


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Henderson, Doug


Armstrong, Hilary
Hinchliffe, David


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Battle, John
Home Robertson, John


Beckett, Margaret
Hood, Jimmy


Beith, A. J.
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Bell, Stuart
Howells, Geraint


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Hoyle, Doug


Blair, Tony
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Blunkett, David
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Boateng, Paul
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Boyes, Roland
Illsley, Eric


Bradley, Keith
Ingram, Adam


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Kennedy, Charles


Buckley, George J.
Kirkwood, Archy


Callaghan, Jim
Leadbitter, Ted


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Leighton, Ron


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Clark, Or David (S Shields)
Livingstone, Ken


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Livsey, Richard


Clay, Bob
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Clelland, David
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Loyden, Eddie


Cohen, Harry
McAllion, John


Corbett, Robin
McAvoy, Thomas


Corbyn, Jeremy
Macdonald, Calum A.


Cousins, Jim
McFall, John


Cox, Tom
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Crowther, Stan
McKelvey, William


Cryer, Bob
McLeish, Henry


Cummings, John
Maclennan, Robert


Cunliffe, Lawrence
McNamara, Kevin


Cunningham, Dr John
McWilliam, John


Dalyell, Tarn
Madden, Max


Darling, Alistair
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Marek, Dr John


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'I)
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Dewar, Donald
Martlew, Eric


Dixon, Don
Meale, Alan


Dobson, Frank
Michael, Alun


Doran, Frank
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Douglas, Dick
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Eadie, Alexander
Morgan, Rhodri


Eastham, Ken
Morley, Elliott


Fatchett, Derek
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Mowlam, Marjorie


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Mullin, Chris


Fisher, Mark
Murphy, Paul


Flannery, Martin
Nellist, Dave


Flynn, Paul
O'Brien, William


Foster, Derek
O'Neill, Martin


Foulkes, George
Patchett, Terry


Fraser, John
Pike, Peter L.


Fyfe, Maria
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Galbraith, Sam
Prescott, John


Galloway, George
Primarolo, Dawn


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)
Radice, Giles


George, Bruce
Redmond, Martin


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Reid, Dr John


Golding, Mrs Llin
Richardson, Jo


Gordon, Mildred
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Gould, Bryan
Robertson, George


Graham, Thomas
Rooker, Jeff






Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Rowlands, Ted
Turner, Dennis


Ruddock, Joan
Vaz, Keith


Salmond, Alex
Wall, Pat


Sedgemore, Brian
Wallace, James


Sheerman, Barry
Walley, Joan


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Warden, Gareth (Gower)


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Wareing, Robert N.


Short, Clare
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Skinner, Dennis
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Snape, Peter
Winnick, David


Spearing, Nigel
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Steel, Rt Hon David
Wray, Jimmy


Steinberg, Gerry
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Stott, Roger



Strang, Gavin
Tellers for the Ayes:


Straw, Jack
Mr. Frank Haynes and


Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Mr. Frank Cook.


Taylor, Matthew (Truro)



NOES


Alexander, Richard
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Allason, Rupert
Colvin, Michael


Amess, David
Conway, Derek


Amos, Alan
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Arbuthnot, James
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Cope, Rt Hon John


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Couchman, James


Ashby, David
Cran, James


Aspinwall, Jack
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Atkins, Robert
Curry, David


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Baldry, Tony
Day, Stephen


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Dicks, Terry


Batiste, Spencer
Dorrell, Stephen


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Bellingham, Henry
Dover, Den


Bendall, Vivian
Dunn, Bob


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Dykes, Hugh


Bevan, David Gilroy
Eggar, Tim


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Emery, Sir Peter


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Body, Sir Richard
Evennett, David


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas


Boswell, Tim
Fallon, Michael


Bottomley, Peter
Favell, Tony


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Fishburn, John Dudley


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Forman, Nigel


Bowis, John
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Forth, Eric


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Fox, Sir Marcus


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Franks, Cecil


Brazier, Julian
Freeman, Roger


Bright, Graham
French, Douglas


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Fry, Peter


Browne, John (Winchester)
Gardiner, George


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
Gill, Christopher


Budgen, Nicholas
Glyn, Dr Alan


Burns, Simon
Goodlad, Alastair


Burt, Alistair
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Butcher, John
Gorst, John


Butler, Chris
Gow, Ian


Butterfill, John
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Greenway, Harry (Eating N)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Gregory, Conal


Carrington, Matthew
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Carttiss, Michael
Grist, Ian


Cash, William
Ground, Patrick


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Chapman, Sydney
Hague, William


Chope, Christopher
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Churchill, Mr
Hampson, Dr Keith


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hanley, Jeremy





Hannam, John
Nicholls, Patrick


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Harris, David
Norris, Steve


Haselhurst, Alan
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Hawkins, Christopher
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hayes, Jerry
Page, Richard


Hayward, Robert
Paice, James


Heddle, John
Patnick, Irvine


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Patten, John (Oxford W)


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Pawsey, James


Hill, James
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hind, Kenneth
Price, Sir David


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Hordern, Sir Peter
Redwood, John


Howard, Michael
Renton, Tim


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Rhodes James, Robert


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Riddick, Graham


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Hunter, Andrew
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Irvine, Michael
Roe, Mrs Marion


Jack, Michael
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Jackson, Robert
Rost, Peter


Janman, Tim
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Sackville, Hon Tom


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Sayeed, Jonathan


Key, Robert
Shaw, David (Dover)


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Shelton, Sir William


Kirkhope, Timothy
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Knapman, Roger
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Lang, Ian
Speller, Tony


Latham, Michael
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Lawrence, Ivan
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Lilley, Peter
Steen, Anthony


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Stern, Michael


Lyell, Sir Nicholas
Stevens, Lewis


McCrindle, Robert
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Stokes, Sir John


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Maclean, David
Summerson, Hugo


McLoughlin, Patrick
Tapsell, Sir Peter


McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Madel, David
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Major, Rt Hon John
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Mans, Keith
Thorne, Neil


Maples, John
Thornton, Malcolm


Marland, Paul
Thurnham, Peter


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Tracey, Richard


Maude, Hon Francis
Tredinnick, David


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Trippier, David


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Trotter, Neville


Mellor, David
Twinn, Dr Ian


Miller, Sir Hal
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Mills, Iain
Viggers, Peter


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Moate, Roger
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Moore, Rt Hon John
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Morris, M (N'hampton S)
Waller, Gary


Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)
Ward, John


Moss, Malcolm
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Warren, Kenneth


Neale, Gerrard
Watts, John


Needham, Richard
Wells, Bowen


Nelson, Anthony
Whitney, Ray


Neubert, Michael
Widdecombe, Ann


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Wiggin, Jerry






Wilkinson, John
Younger, Rt Hon George


Wilshire, David



Winterton, Mrs Ann
Tellers for the Noes:


Winterton, Nicholas
Mr. Tony Durant and


Wood, Timothy
Mr. David Lightbown.


Yeo, Tim

Question accordingly negatived.

WELSH GRAND COMMITTEE

Ordered,
That during the proceedings on the matter of the first year of the Valleys Programme the Welsh Grand Committee have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it shall meet, and that, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 88 (Meetings of standing committees), the second such sitting shall not commence before Four o'clock nor continue after the Committee has considered the matter for two hours at the sitting.—[Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.]

DNA Testing

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.]

Mr. Max Madden: Home Office watchers, especially those of us who are closely involved in immigration and nationality matters, never cease to be amazed at the breathtaking arrogance of successive Home Secretaries or at the sustained efforts of their senior officials to manage and manipulate the House and the national news media. But the propensity of Home Secretaries to try to mislead the House at the behest of senior officials has been revealed this week in precise detail. That the issue at the heart of this attempted Home Office deception concerns DNA testing and the immigration rules is all part of a pattern of events concerning immigration and nationality which has unfolded since 1979.
The Government, in concert with senior Home Office officials, have carefully planned and introduced a series of laws, rules, regulations and procedures which, in total, now mean that many black and Asian people find it extremely difficult—even when they have clear rights to live in this country—to enter the United Kingdom, and in recent years even to visit relatives and friends in this country.
The Government's "firm and fair" immigration policy is a euphemism for racist laws which discriminate on the basis of race and colour and against those who suffer the dual misfortune of being black or Asian and poor.
I accuse the Government of trying to mislead the House about a centrally organised DNA testing scheme. Last week, when announcing such a scheme, the Home Secretary said that decisions about how the scheme was to be funded had not been reached. However, a Home Office document, written by the head of the immigration and nationality department, Mr. G. N. Stadlen, makes it clear that a decision on funding has been reached. Indeed, it makes it clear that an increase in entry clearance fees will be introduced on 1 November. It is also clear, from this document and from a draft letter to the Lord President from the Home Secretary, that the Home Secretary has been and is plotting to deny the House any opportunity to debate either the principle of raising entry clearance fees, which are now £60 per person, to fund a centrally organised DNA testing scheme, or, indeed, to debate and
Last night the Government deliberately arranged a debate to discuss DNA testing and changes in the immigration rules together so as to avoid—I quote from the Home Office documents which were leaked this week—
two separate rows about immigration issues in quick succession.
As is also clear from the draft letter and from Mr. Stadlen's document, the Home Secretary had planned the controversial DNA announcement with the immigration rule changes to "divert some attention" from the absence of any further provisions or promises for the people of Hong Kong.
I believe that all my right hon. and hon. Friends will agree that last night's debate on DNA testing and the immigration rule changes was a shambolic farce. Many hon. Members who wished to participate in that debate had no opportunity to do so and the Minister, who happily


is with us again tonight, was left with fewer than 10 minutes to reply to the many questions put to him by hon. Members from all parts of the House.
The Minister said that he would speak about DNA testing in reply to this Adjournment debate. I have many expectations of Adjournment debates, but never before have I witnessed a Minister from a Department which had deliberately contrived to arrange a debate to discuss two issues—DNA testing and the immigration rule changes—tell the House that as he did not have time to talk about DNA testing he would make a statement on it in an Adjournment debate the following evening.
In reply to questions from journalists today, the Home Office has made it clear that the Minister of State will say little about DNA testing tonight, so I am left with no alternative but to believe that the Home Secretary's attempt seriously to mislead the House of Commons has backfired badly. We are left with the Minister of State who, despite all his considerable powers of bluff and bluster, which were fully deployed last night, cannot conceal the Government's embarrassment. He has been left with egg all over his face as a result of the Home Secretary's and the Home Office's attempt to mislead the House of Commons and to arrange the business of the House for their convenience.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. On previous occasions Mr. Speaker has made it clear that hon. Members must not accuse Ministers of deliberately seeking to mislead the House. That is a reflection on their integrity and honour. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw that accusation.

Mr. Madden: In a moment I shall quote extensively from the document to which I have already referred. Any objective view of that document can only lead one to the inevitable conclusion that the Home Secretary, in concert with other senior Ministers, was actively seeking to mislead the House of Commons.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have told the hon. Gentleman that Mr. Speaker will not tolerate remarks in the House which reflect on the integrity of hon. Members, whether they be Ministers or otherwise. The hon. Gentleman may well adduce his evidence and leave it for the House to draw its own conclusions, but he must not make that allegation. He must withdraw it.

Mr. Madden: I shall gladly do that, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The Minister of State and his officials should now do what they should have done at the start and make a statement on DNA testing and the centrally organised DNA testing scheme that the Government wish to announce. They should follow that statement with a full debate in the House—I would not dare to say during daylight hours, but at a reasonable hour. Last night we had a non-debate on DNA and a short debate on immigration rule changes in the early hours of the morning, and tonight this debate is taking place well after midnight.
I hope that the Minister of State will readily accept my suggestion, because it would enable the Home Secretary to give full and accurate information about a centrally organised DNA testing scheme which is vital to divided families who desperately want to be reunited in Britain. It would enable all those hon. Members who have many

questions to ask about how the scheme will be funded and operated to put those questions with a reasonable expectation of receiving full and accurate replies.
I quote briefly from the draft letter to the Lord President of the Council for signature by the Home Secretary, which is annex A to the document written by Mr. Stadlen and discusses the timing of last Wednesday's written answer to a parliamentary question on DNA testing. It says:
I have considered carefully whether there are countervailing Hong Kong factors which justify postponement. My conclusion is that postponement would, if anything, Increase speculation on that score rather than diminish it: it will be better to proceed on the basis of 'business as usual' for immediate purposes explaining as necessary that any Hong Kong proposals will be forthcoming separately. Since I shall, with H colleagues' approval, be simultaneously making a possible controversial announcement about the use of DNA in immigration cases, it could well be that that will divert some attention.
I have however removed from the new Rules a measure to increase to £200,000 the minimum sum of £150.000 at present required for entry as a businessman or person of independent means. The current sum has been widely mentioned in recent days in the Hong Kong context, and increasing it now could undermine our current Hong Kong policy.
I attach a copy of the Written Answer and Press Release which have been prepared for the announcement. Our officials have already been in touch about the timing of a debate on the Rules. At that stage, too, it will be very important to consider the Hong Kong dimension and I will, of course, be keeping in close touch with the Foreign Secretary for that purpose.
I am sending copies of this letter to the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary, the Secretaries of State for Trade and Industry, for Employment, for Education and Science, and to Sir Robin Butler.
The memorandum from Mr. Stadlen, referring to the timing of last Wednesday's announcement, states in part:
postponement would arouse expectations which we cannot at this stage be sure of meeting, leading to possible presentational problems later on. Proceeding with the rules now, by contrast, enables us to say that they have been in the pipe line for sometime and are being introduced without prejudice to the outcome of the consideration being given to the position of the people of Hong Kong.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Tim Renton): I was under the impression that the hon. Gentleman wanted to talk about DNA. So far he has wasted 13 of the 30 minutes allocated to an Adjournment debate quoting a leaked Home Office document that has very little to do with DNA. Shall we be given a chance to discuss DNA tonight, or is the hon. Gentleman's intention once again frivolously to waste the time of the House, as he did last night?

Mr. Madden: I hoped to discuss DNA testing last night. I hoped for an opportunity to ask questions about it after the statement that I had presumed would be made last week, and in a debate in Government time at a reasonable hour. As this is my debate, I shall deploy my arguments and make my speech in my own way. The Minister must contain himself, but if he is so anxious to debate DNA, I hope that he will join me in persuading his right hon. Friends the Home Secretary and the Leader of the House to provide time for a full debate on DNA testing.
The memorandum makes it clear that the immigration rules are not being changed to allow the amount required of business people to be increased to £200,000 because of the Hong Kong dimension. It adds that a later date of laying would enable the Home Secretary
to develop a defensive line or outline proposals on Hong Kong before the debate. But the Home Secretary's decision to


proceed with the rules changes is premised on our ability to present them as a matter quite separate from Hong Kong, and on the desirability of disposing of the debate before the Government comes under pressure to announce its conclusion. Accordingly, I recommend that the rules be laid on Wednesday.
A section entitled "Handling the announcement" contains the statement:
The press will now be looking out for the rules changes. I propose therefore that we publish them on the same day as laying, to put us in a position to respond promptly to enquiries and press reports.
In another headed "The debate" there is the comment:
Because the consolidated rules cover the whole of immigration control, the debate will be wide ranging and we shall prepare briefing accordingly. Mr. Renton will speak at the end. B2 are putting together a draft speech to cover the main rules changes (visas for Turkey and Haiti, students sex discrimination), Hong Kong (briefly) and DNA".
The document goes on to deal with the Government's DNA scheme, which is a serious matter:
It does not indicate how the scheme will be financed, beyond reiterating that the cost will not be met by the taxpayer. The intention is to make a separate announcement on the funding arrangements shortly before the scheme comes into effect, to avoid a rush of applications aimed at beating the associated increase in the settlement fee.
Although no part of the DNA proposals involves changes in the rules, it is certain that the Opposition and the lobby will use the opportunity offered by the rules changes to argue the case for over-age reapplicants. Consequently we see advantage in combining the two announcements, thus avoiding two separate rows about immigration issues in quick succession.
And so it goes on, in much the same vein.
I know that the Minister is anxious to discuss DNA. May I, therefore, put six questions to him—very quickly—which I very much hope that he will try to answer either tonight or in the debate that I hope we shall be allowed shortly?
First, by how much will entry fees increase on I November, as foreshadowed in the internal Home Office document? Secondly, will applicants be required to pay anything for undertaking DNA tests? Thirdly, will there be a flat-rate increase in entry clearance, or a variable increase? Fourthly, what are the projected public expenditure savings to the Home Office and appellate authorities?
Incidentally, I put down two questions for answer today—to the Home Office and Foreign Office—seeking that information, and have as yet received no reply. That is not surprising; obviously the Minister will be falling over himself to give the information tonight.
Fifthly, will the Minister publish full financial details of the operation of entry clearance, bearing in mind that the total cost of an entry clearance officer was given in 1986 as £100,000? Sixthly, will he give a firm assurance that so-called "over-age children" who confirm their application to join their families here by positive DNA tests will be treated sympathetically? Like many other people, I feel that it would be a tragedy if the position set out in the internal Home Office document were translated into reality.
I believe that the way in which the Home Office has sought to deal with the matter raises serious issues. I do not think that anyone who gives a fair and objective interpretation to the Home Office document or to the way in which the Government have sought to orchestrate the

announcement of the matter—in my view, there has been a deliberate attempt to mislead and conceal—can feel anything other than grave concern.
This is a crucial matter, to which many divided families have been looking forward for many years. I believe that they deserve better treatment than they have been given by the Home Office and the Government. I hope that the Minister of State will do what he did not do last night and give some clear and full information about the way in which the scheme is to be operated.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Tim Renton): I have rarely known such an abuse of the procedures of the House as we have just heard from the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden). He spoke for 17 of the 30 minutes allocated to an Adjournment debate, simply quoting from a leaked Home Office document which, while it certainly bears on DNA, has very little relevance to it.
In his final remarks the hon. Gentleman described DNA as "a crucially important matter", yet in the rest of his speech he went out of his way to show that his only interest in the subject was to stir up political trouble. He has no real interest in it; if he had, he would have given me time to answer serious questions rather than try to stir a political pot. He talks as though he is simply—in his own words—out to frighten the black, the Asian and the poor.
Why this contemptible attitude? Is the hon. Gentleman so frightened of his own position in his constituency that that is all that he can do? At the end of last night's debate I had only seven minutes in which to answer, rather than the 15 for which I had asked. Why? Because the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) went on and on talking. When I rose to reply I was constantly interrupted by points of order, not least by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), the shadow Leader of the House, who said that I was speaking for the second time in the debate when I had not even spoken for the first time. It showed an extraordinary lack of knowledge of what was happening in the House. By his contempt of the House, the hon. Member for Bradford, West has shown that his only interest in the matter is just to try to stir up a bit of political trouble. I feel sorry for his constituents if that is the only service that they can get from him.
I return to the ludicrous charge by the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary misled the House about charging for DNA tests. There is no question of that whatsoever. We made it clear from the outset that any DNA scheme will not be funded out of taxpayers' money. Our policy is that the cost of the entry clearance process should be met by the applicants themselves rather than by the taxpayer. I see no reason why the costs of DNA tests should be treated any differently.
We recognise, of course, that the tests are expensive, particularly where several members of the same family are applying. With this in mind, my right hon. Friend made it clear last week that
The level of the fee to be charged for
settlement
applications will need to strike a balance between not imposing too great a burden either on the individual applicant or on the taxpayer."—[Official Report, 14 June 1989; Vol. 154, c. 464.]
If, for one moment, the hon. Member for Bradford, West would unblock his ears and listen I should tell him that,


beyond this, no final decision has been taken, whatever he may have read in national newspapers. Once we have worked up the detailed arrangements—

Mr. Madden: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Renton: No, I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman. I have only a few minutes left. He took up a great deal more than half the time and, unlike him, I want to talk about DNA.
Once we have worked out detailed arrangements for financing the DNA scheme, we will of course make a further announcement to the House. That announcement will be made before the scheme is implemented overseas. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are conscious of the need to avoid erecting a financial barrier which might constitute a deterrent to genuine family applicants. There has been no deceit whatsoever. Quite the contrary. My right hon. Friend has set out in full the way that we are going. Certain steps now have to be taken. For example, we have to negotiate contracts and prices with commercial suppliers. I repeat that when we have reached a final decision on the matter a further announcement will be made to the House. I hope that for once the hon. Gentleman will give up a little of his sound and fury and that he will go home and think seriously about DNA.

Mr. Madden: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Renton: No.
The hon. Gentleman, and other hon. Members, have argued that special consideration should be given to over-age re-applicants who were refused as children on relationship grounds and who do not meet the requirements of the rules relating to adults. I accept that this is a particularly difficult issue. For that reason, we gave it a great deal of thought. I listened very carefully to the points that were made in the debate on the immigration rules last night, but again I say to the hon. Member for Bradford, West that the subject of the debate was not DNA but the immigration rules. DNA is not mentioned in the immigration rules.

Mr. Madden: The Minister mentioned it.

Mr. Renton: I did not mention it; the hon. Gentleman raised it. In the very short time that was available to me last night I made it absolutely plain that I intended to talk about DNA tonight, not in a debate on the immigration rules.
In particular, I listened to a characteristically thoughtful contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller). However, I cannot agree with my hon. Friend or with the hon. Member for Bradford, West that this is simply a matter of reversing decisions that have turned out to be wrong. It is not as simple as that.

Mr. Madden: Why?

Mr. Renton: The hon. Gentleman should know, because he studies immigration matters quite carefully, that dependency lies at the heart of the question as to what decides who, other than spouses and fiancés, are allowed to join family units in the United Kingdom. That means that, under normal circumstances, only young children or elderly dependent relatives are given leave to enter.
The immigration rules now make generous provision for the admission of children on the basis that it is desirable for children to spend their formative years with their parents. Once a child has reached the age of 18, however, he is regarded as an independent adult. The rules provide for the admission of children over the age of 18 to join parents or relatives settled here only in the most exceptional compassionate circumstances. It seems to me that a person who once applied as a child cannot automatically be admitted regardless of his present age and circumstances. Many of those involved, after all, have now settled into independent adult life and will have established jobs and families of their own overseas.
This said, and having considered the matter very carefully, we decided that it would be right to relax the requirements of the rules in certain circumstances where a person previously refused entry as a child is now able to establish relationship by means of DNA evidence. A re-applicant will be expected to show that he is still wholly or mainly dependent on his United Kingdom sponsor, as that was the basis of his original application as a child. We will also look for some compassionate circumstances which distinguish the particular case from the generality of over-age re-applicants.
Subject to those requirements, we will be prepared to consider each case on its merits with a view to exercising discretion in suitable cases. I hope that this goes a substantial way towards reassuring my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley, and I hope that it will go some way towards reassuring the hon. Member for Bradford, West—although I doubt it, as his ears are permanently blocked—that we will approach these difficult cases compassionately and sympathetically, while maintaining the basic distinction between children and adults which has been a settled feature of our immigration policy for many years.
DNA is a powerful and important new technique. There is no doubt that it has a good deal to offer in the immigration context. But I believe that the proposals which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced last week and which I have outlined tonight will go a long way towards making disputes about relationships, which have dogged so many immigration cases, a thing of the past. I do not anticipate any immediate reduction in Home Office expenditure, but I remember going on Sylhet village visits with our entry clearance officers from Dacca and I know the great lengths to which they went to establish whether relationships were genuine and as claimed. I hope that, when DNA is rooted and bedded down in our system, some of those village visits will not be necessary in future.
I am sure that most fair-minded people will regard our proposals as a fair and reasonable way forward. I should like to think that even the hon. Member for Bradford, West, with all the bile and anger that he appears to find it inevitable to bring to these difficult immigration matters, on mature reflection will accept the reasonableness of our proposals.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at thirteen minutes to One o'clock.